AB 2752: Juvenile court: visitation.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2024-06-27
Current Status:
Failed
(2024-08-15: In committee: Held under submission.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill creates a presumption that parents and guardians of children in foster care should have unsupervised visits, and directs judges at initial and review hearings to set the frequency and length of visits and to allow supervised visits only when there is an identified, present danger of harm and no reasonable way to protect the child without supervision; it defines unsupervised visitation as contact without a third person. If a judge orders supervised visits, the order must state the factual basis, require the county child welfare agency to assess proposed supervisors and to provide supervision if no one is approved, and social workers must explain why return would be harmful and what was done to try to liberalize visits.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law establishes procedures for an initial petition hearing by the juvenile court if a child is being taken into temporary custody, and requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months Existing law requires any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child, but prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. Existing law also requires the court to continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending status hearings unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
This bill would remove the above-described prohibition on visitations that jeopardize the safety of a child. The bill would, during the initial petition hearing, require the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian that sets forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time and specifies whether the visitation shall be supervised. This bill would, with any order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services and during subsequent review hearings, require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the childs physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would prohibit a determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial serving as the sole basis for denying unsupervised visitation. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. The bill would define unsupervised visitation for these purposes. The bill would require a court, if the court orders supervised visitation, to specify the factual basis for its order and to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety. The bill would also require the county child welfare agency or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits.
Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a review hearing.
This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare.
By increasing the duties of counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law establishes procedures for an initial petition hearing by the juvenile court if a child is being taken into temporary custody, and requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months Existing law requires any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child, but prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. Existing law also requires the court to continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending status hearings unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
This bill would remove the above-described prohibition on visitations that jeopardize the safety of a child. The bill would, during the initial petition hearing, require the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian that sets forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time and specifies whether the visitation shall be supervised. This bill would, with any order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services and during subsequent review hearings, require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the childs physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would prohibit a determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial serving as the sole basis for denying unsupervised visitation. The bill would define unsupervised visitation for these purposes. The bill would require a court, if the court orders supervised visitation, to specify the factual basis for its order and to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety. The bill would also require the county child welfare agency or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits.
Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a review hearing.
This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare.
By increasing the duties of counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law establishes procedures for an initial petition hearing by the juvenile court if a child is being taken into temporary custody, and requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law requires any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child, but prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. Existing law also requires the court to continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending status hearings unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.
This bill would remove the above-described prohibition. prohibition on visitations that jeopardize the safety of a child. The bill would, during the initial petition hearing, require the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian that sets forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time and specifies whether the visitation shall be supervised. This bill would would, with any order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services and during subsequent review hearings, require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the childs physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would define unsupervised visitation for these purposes. The bill would require that, a court, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court must make findings and conditions regarding visitation. to specify the factual basis for its order and to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety. The bill would also require social workers the county child welfare agency or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require that, if visitation with the child has not been liberalized, the court must specify what efforts were made to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization of visits was contrary to the childs welfare.
Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing.
This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare.
By increasing the duties of county social workers, counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child.
This bill would remove the above-described prohibition. This bill would require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the childs physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would define unsupervised visitation for these purposes. The bill would require that, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court must make findings and conditions regarding visitation. The bill would also require social workers or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require that, if visitation with the child has not been liberalized, the court must specify what efforts were made to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization of visits was contrary to the childs welfare.
Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing.
This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare.
By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(a)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the childs parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the childs parents or guardians, the childs Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian childs tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350.
(b)The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parents, guardians, or Indian custodians physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following:
(1)A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(2)The steps taken to provide notice to the childs parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section.
(3)If the childs parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director.
(4)The residence and the domicile of the Indian child.
(5)If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village.
(6)The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians.
(7)A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody.
(8)If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribes jurisdiction.
(9)A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.
(10)The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration.
(c)(1)The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parents or guardians physical custody.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(C)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(D)The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home.
(2)(A)The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i)A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the childs perspective, and the childs response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal.
(ii)The relationship between the child and any siblings.
(iii)The relationship between the child and other members of the household.
(iv)Any disruption to the childs schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and, in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the childs connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community.
(B)If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following:
(i)The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on.
(ii)Its determination regarding the childs placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives.
(iii)Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal.
(C)Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives.
(d)If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding.
(e)(1)If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following:
(A)Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.
(C)It is not possible to initiate an Indian child custody proceeding as defined in Section 224.1.
(f)(1)The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social workers report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358.
(3)If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(4)In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
(g)If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social workers report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the childs welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be vested with the county child welfare department pending the hearing held pursuant to Section 355 or further order of the court, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate.
(h)(1)(A)If the child is not released from custody, the court may order the temporary placement of the child in any of the following for a period not to exceed 15 judicial days:
(i)The home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, that has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(ii)The approved home of a resource family, as described in Section 16519.5, or a home licensed or approved by the Indian childs tribe.
(iii)An emergency shelter or other suitable licensed place.
(iv)A place exempt from licensure designated by the juvenile court.
(B)A youth homelessness prevention center licensed by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1502.35 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be a placement option pursuant to this section.
(C)If the court knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the Indian child shall be detained in a home that complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), unless the court finds good cause exists pursuant to Section 361.31 not to follow the placement preferences. If the court finds good cause not to follow the placement preferences for detention, this finding does not affect the requirement that a diligent search be made for a subsequent placement within the placement preferences.
(2)Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child. As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of these persons, even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.
(3)When placing in the home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or nonrelative extended family member, the court shall consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4 of the home of the relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, including the results of a criminal records check and prior child abuse allegations, if any, before ordering that the child be placed with a relative or nonrelative extended family member. The court may authorize the placement of a child on a temporary basis in the home of a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal record exemption or resource family approval, if the court finds that the placement does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the social worker the names, residences, and any known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. The social worker shall initiate the assessment pursuant to Section 361.3 of any relative to be considered for continuing placement.
(i)In the case of an Indian child, any order detaining the child pursuant to this section shall be considered an emergency removal within the meaning of Section 1922 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The emergency proceeding shall terminate if the child is returned to the custody of the parent, parents, or Indian custodian, the child has been transferred to the custody and jurisdiction of the childs tribe, or the agency or another party to the proceeding recommends that the child be removed from the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian pursuant to Section 361 or 361.2.
(j)(1)At the initial hearing upon the petition filed in accordance with subdivision (c) of Rule 5.520 of the California Rules of Court or anytime thereafter up until the time that the minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court or a finding is made dismissing the petition, the court may temporarily limit the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child and temporarily appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child if all of the following conditions are found:
(A)The parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or unwilling to exercise educational or developmental services rights for the child.
(B)The county placing agency has made diligent efforts to locate and secure the participation of the parent or guardian in educational or developmental services decisionmaking.
(C)The childs educational and developmental services needs cannot be met without the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.
(2)If the court limits the parents educational rights under this subdivision, the court shall determine whether there is a responsible adult who is a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the child and who is available and willing to serve as the childs educational representative before appointing an educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.
(3)If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child and the appointment of a surrogate parent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 56050 of the Education Code, is not warranted, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make educational decisions for the child. If the child is receiving services from a regional center, the provision of any developmental services related to the courts decision shall be consistent with the childs individual program plan and pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500)). If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make developmental services decisions for the child, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make developmental services decisions for the child. If the court makes educational or developmental services decisions for the child, the court shall also issue appropriate orders to ensure that every effort is made to identify a responsible adult to make future educational or developmental services decisions for the child.
(4)A temporary appointment of a responsible adult and temporary limitation on the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. An order made under this section shall expire at the conclusion of the hearing held pursuant to Section 361 or upon dismissal of the petition. Upon the entering of disposition orders, additional needed limitation on the parents or guardians educational or developmental services rights shall be addressed pursuant to Section 361.
(5)This section does not remove the obligation to appoint surrogate parents for students with disabilities who are without parental representation in special education procedures, as required by state and federal law, including Section 1415(b)(2) of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 56050 of the Education Code, Section 7579.5 of the Government Code, and Rule 5.650 of the California Rules of Court.
(6)If the court appoints a developmental services decisionmaker pursuant to this section, the developmental services decisionmaker shall have the authority to access the childs information and records pursuant to subdivision (u) of Section 4514 and paragraph (23) of subdivision (a) of Section 5328, and to act on the childs behalf for the purposes of the individual program plan process pursuant to Sections 4646, 4646.5, and 4648 and the fair hearing process pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700) of Division 4.5, and as set forth in the court order.
(k)For a placement made on or after October 1, 2021, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a short-term residential therapeutic program shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(l)For a placement made on or after July 1, 2022, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a community treatment facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(m)(1)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing pursuant to Section 358.
(2)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(3)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 2.Section 362.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:362.1.(a)In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
(1)(A)Subject to subparagraphs (B) to (E), inclusive, for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist: would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(i)Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision.(ii)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.(B)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(C)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(D)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(E)To protect the safety of the child, the court may keep the childs address confidential. If the parent of the child has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child, the court shall order visitation between the child and the parent only if that order would be consistent with Section 3030 of the Family Code.
(2)Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002, for visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(3)Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16002, for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing pursuant to Section 366, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(4)If the child is a teenage parent who has custody of their child and that child is not a dependent of the court pursuant to this chapter, for visitation among the teenage parent, the childs noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teenage parent.
(b)When reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Section 361.5, the childs plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of and the relationship with any sibling pursuant to Section 16002, including their impact on placement and visitation.
(c)As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.
(d)As used in this chapter, unsupervised visitation means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.
SEC. 3.Section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:364.(a)Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. The continued hearing shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present of the date of the future hearings, of their rights to be present, and to be represented by counsel.
(b)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court describing the services offered to the family and the progress made by the family in eliminating the conditions or factors requiring court supervision. The social worker shall also make a recommendation regarding the necessity of continued supervision. A copy of this report shall be furnished to all parties at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
(c)After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or their department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.
(d)If the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a specified date, not more than six months from the time of the hearing, at which point the court shall again follow the procedure specified in subdivision (c).
(e)In any case in which the court has ordered that a parent or guardian shall retain physical custody of a child subject to supervision by a social worker, and the social worker subsequently receives a report of acts or circumstances which indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the social worker shall commence proceedings under this chapter. If, as a result of the proceedings required, the court finds that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the court shall remove the child from the care, custody, and control of the childs parent or guardian and shall commit the child to the care, custody, and control of the social worker pursuant to Section 361.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist: would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(A)Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subparagraph.(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 4.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days before the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable them to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. If visitation has not been liberalized, the report shall specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)(1)At the review hearing held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, when relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
(3)If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
(4)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
(5)If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
(6)If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
(7)In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
(8)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(9)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(10)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(11)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(12)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(f)(1)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
(A)At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(B)The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.
(C)In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(D)For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(4)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(5)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(6)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(i)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(ii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
(A)The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. When the child is under 16 years of age, the court shall order a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. When the child is 16 years of age or older, or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501.
(B)If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
(C)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive their birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
SEC. 5.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.22.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, including visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian.
(2)(A)Except as provided in paragraph (1) and subject to subparagraph (B), if the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court finds that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall extend reunification services for an additional six months.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on competent evidence from a mental health professional that extending the time period for reunification services would be detrimental to the child, the court is not required to extend reunification services for an additional six months. The court shall state, either on the record or in writing, the reasons for its finding. Neither the passage of time nor the childs relationship with the caregiver shall be grounds, in and of themselves, for the denial of further reunification services.
(3)The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)(i)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to their country of origin and their return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(ii)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(iii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(4)The juvenile courts findings under this subdivision shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or legal guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 6.Section 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.25.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, the subsequent permanency review hearing shall occur within 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or, in the case of a child 16 years of age or older when no other permanent plan is appropriate, another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interest of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, then the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the subsequent permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of, and nature of, any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(c)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(d)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(e)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation 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 XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the childs parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the childs parents or guardians, the childs Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian childs tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350.
(b)The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parents, guardians, or Indian custodians physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following:
(1)A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(2)The steps taken to provide notice to the childs parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section.
(3)If the childs parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director.
(4)The residence and the domicile of the Indian child.
(5)If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village.
(6)The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians.
(7)A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody.
(8)If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribes jurisdiction.
(9)A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.
(10)The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration.
(c)(1)The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parents or guardians physical custody.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(C)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(D)The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home.
(2)(A)The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i)A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the childs perspective, and the childs response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal.
(ii)The relationship between the child and any siblings.
(iii)The relationship between the child and other members of the household.
(iv)Any disruption to the childs schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and, in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the childs connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community.
(B)If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following:
(i)The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on.
(ii)Its determination regarding the childs placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives.
(iii)Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal.
(C)Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives.
(d)If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding.
(e)(1)If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following:
(A)Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.
(C)It is not possible to initiate an Indian child custody proceeding as defined in Section 224.1.
(f)(1)The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social workers report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358.
(3)If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(4)In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
(g)If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social workers report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the childs welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be vested with the county child welfare department pending the hearing held pursuant to Section 355 or further order of the court, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate.
(h)(1)(A)If the child is not released from custody, the court may order the temporary placement of the child in any of the following for a period not to exceed 15 judicial days:
(i)The home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, that has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(ii)The approved home of a resource family, as described in Section 16519.5, or a home licensed or approved by the Indian childs tribe.
(iii)An emergency shelter or other suitable licensed place.
(iv)A place exempt from licensure designated by the juvenile court.
(B)A youth homelessness prevention center licensed by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1502.35 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be a placement option pursuant to this section.
(C)If the court knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the Indian child shall be detained in a home that complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), unless the court finds good cause exists pursuant to Section 361.31 not to follow the placement preferences. If the court finds good cause not to follow the placement preferences for detention, this finding does not affect the requirement that a diligent search be made for a subsequent placement within the placement preferences.
(2)Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child. As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of these persons, even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.
(3)When placing in the home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or nonrelative extended family member, the court shall consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4 of the home of the relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, including the results of a criminal records check and prior child abuse allegations, if any, before ordering that the child be placed with a relative or nonrelative extended family member. The court may authorize the placement of a child on a temporary basis in the home of a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal record exemption or resource family approval, if the court finds that the placement does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the social worker the names, residences, and any known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. The social worker shall initiate the assessment pursuant to Section 361.3 of any relative to be considered for continuing placement.
(i)In the case of an Indian child, any order detaining the child pursuant to this section shall be considered an emergency removal within the meaning of Section 1922 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The emergency proceeding shall terminate if the child is returned to the custody of the parent, parents, or Indian custodian, the child has been transferred to the custody and jurisdiction of the childs tribe, or the agency or another party to the proceeding recommends that the child be removed from the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian pursuant to Section 361 or 361.2.
(j)(1)At the initial hearing upon the petition filed in accordance with subdivision (c) of Rule 5.520 of the California Rules of Court or anytime thereafter up until the time that the minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court or a finding is made dismissing the petition, the court may temporarily limit the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child and temporarily appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child if all of the following conditions are found:
(A)The parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or unwilling to exercise educational or developmental services rights for the child.
(B)The county placing agency has made diligent efforts to locate and secure the participation of the parent or guardian in educational or developmental services decisionmaking.
(C)The childs educational and developmental services needs cannot be met without the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.
(2)If the court limits the parents educational rights under this subdivision, the court shall determine whether there is a responsible adult who is a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the child and who is available and willing to serve as the childs educational representative before appointing an educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.
(3)If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child and the appointment of a surrogate parent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 56050 of the Education Code, is not warranted, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make educational decisions for the child. If the child is receiving services from a regional center, the provision of any developmental services related to the courts decision shall be consistent with the childs individual program plan and pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500)). If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make developmental services decisions for the child, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make developmental services decisions for the child. If the court makes educational or developmental services decisions for the child, the court shall also issue appropriate orders to ensure that every effort is made to identify a responsible adult to make future educational or developmental services decisions for the child.
(4)A temporary appointment of a responsible adult and temporary limitation on the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. An order made under this section shall expire at the conclusion of the hearing held pursuant to Section 361 or upon dismissal of the petition. Upon the entering of disposition orders, additional needed limitation on the parents or guardians educational or developmental services rights shall be addressed pursuant to Section 361.
(5)This section does not remove the obligation to appoint surrogate parents for students with disabilities who are without parental representation in special education procedures, as required by state and federal law, including Section 1415(b)(2) of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 56050 of the Education Code, Section 7579.5 of the Government Code, and Rule 5.650 of the California Rules of Court.
(6)If the court appoints a developmental services decisionmaker pursuant to this section, the developmental services decisionmaker shall have the authority to access the childs information and records pursuant to subdivision (u) of Section 4514 and paragraph (23) of subdivision (a) of Section 5328, and to act on the childs behalf for the purposes of the individual program plan process pursuant to Sections 4646, 4646.5, and 4648 and the fair hearing process pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700) of Division 4.5, and as set forth in the court order.
(k)For a placement made on or after October 1, 2021, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a short-term residential therapeutic program shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(l)For a placement made on or after July 1, 2022, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a community treatment facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(m)(1)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing pursuant to Section 358.
(2)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(3)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 2.Section 362.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:362.1.(a)In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
(1)(A)Subject to subparagraphs (B) to (F), (E), inclusive, for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(i)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision.
(ii)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare. (C)(B)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(D)(C)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(E)(D)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(F)(E)To protect the safety of the child, the court may keep the childs address confidential. If the parent of the child has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child, the court shall order visitation between the child and the parent only if that order would be consistent with Section 3030 of the Family Code.
(2)Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002, for visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(3)Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16002, for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing pursuant to Section 366, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(4)If the child is a teenage parent who has custody of their child and that child is not a dependent of the court pursuant to this chapter, for visitation among the teenage parent, the childs noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teenage parent.
(b)When reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Section 361.5, the childs plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of and the relationship with any sibling pursuant to Section 16002, including their impact on placement and visitation.
(c)As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.
(d)As used in this chapter, unsupervised visitation means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.
SEC. 3.Section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:364.(a)Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. The continued hearing shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present of the date of the future hearings, of their rights to be present, and to be represented by counsel.
(b)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court describing the services offered to the family and the progress made by the family in eliminating the conditions or factors requiring court supervision. The social worker shall also make a recommendation regarding the necessity of continued supervision. A copy of this report shall be furnished to all parties at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
(c)After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or their department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.
(d)If the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a specified date, not more than six months from the time of the hearing, at which point the court shall again follow the procedure specified in subdivision (c).
(e)In any case in which the court has ordered that a parent or guardian shall retain physical custody of a child subject to supervision by a social worker, and the social worker subsequently receives a report of acts or circumstances which indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the social worker shall commence proceedings under this chapter. If, as a result of the proceedings required, the court finds that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the court shall remove the child from the care, custody, and control of the childs parent or guardian and shall commit the child to the care, custody, and control of the social worker pursuant to Section 361.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subparagraph.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(2)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare. (3)(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 4.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days before the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable them to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. If visitation has not been liberalized, the report shall specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)(1)At the review hearing held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, when relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
(3)If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
(4)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
(5)If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
(6)If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
(7)In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
(8)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(9)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph.
(10)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare. (11)(10)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(12)(11)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(13)(12)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(f)(1)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
(A)At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(B)The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.
(C)In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(D)For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph.
(4)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.(5)(4)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(6)(5)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(7)(6)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(i)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(ii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
(A)The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. When the child is under 16 years of age, the court shall order a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. When the child is 16 years of age or older, or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501.
(B)If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
(C)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive their birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
SEC. 5.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.22.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, including visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian.
(2)(A)Except as provided in paragraph (1) and subject to subparagraph (B), if the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court finds that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall extend reunification services for an additional six months.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on competent evidence from a mental health professional that extending the time period for reunification services would be detrimental to the child, the court is not required to extend reunification services for an additional six months. The court shall state, either on the record or in writing, the reasons for its finding. Neither the passage of time nor the childs relationship with the caregiver shall be grounds, in and of themselves, for the denial of further reunification services.
(3)The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)(i)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to their country of origin and their return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(ii)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(iii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(4)The juvenile courts findings under this subdivision shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or legal guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.(3)(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 6.Section 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.25.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, the subsequent permanency review hearing shall occur within 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or, in the case of a child 16 years of age or older when no other permanent plan is appropriate, another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interest of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, then the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the subsequent permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of, and nature of, any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(c)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(d)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(e)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the childs specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.(3)(2)The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)(3)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)(4)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation 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 XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the childs parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the childs parents or guardians, the childs Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian childs tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350.
(b)The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parents, guardians, or Indian custodians physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following:
(1)A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(2)The steps taken to provide notice to the childs parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section.
(3)If the childs parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director.
(4)The residence and the domicile of the Indian child.
(5)If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village.
(6)The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians.
(7)A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody.
(8)If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribes jurisdiction.
(9)A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.
(10)The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration.
(c)(1)The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parents or guardians physical custody.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(C)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(D)The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home.
(2)(A)The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i)A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the childs perspective, and the childs response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal.
(ii)The relationship between the child and any siblings.
(iii)The relationship between the child and other members of the household.
(iv)Any disruption to the childs schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and and, in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the childs connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community.
(B)If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following:
(i)The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on.
(ii)Its determination regarding the childs placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives.
(iii)Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal.
(C)Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives.
(d)If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding.
(e)(1)If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following:
(A)Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.
(C)It is not possible to initiate an Indian child custody proceeding as defined in Section 224.1.
(f)(1)The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social workers report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358.
(3)If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(4)In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
(g)If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social workers report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the childs welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be vested with the county child welfare department pending the hearing held pursuant to Section 355 or further order of the court, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate.
(h)(1)(A)If the child is not released from custody, the court may order the temporary placement of the child in any of the following for a period not to exceed 15 judicial days:
(i)The home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, that has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(ii)The approved home of a resource family, as described in Section 16519.5, or a home licensed or approved by the Indian childs tribe.
(iii)An emergency shelter or other suitable licensed place.
(iv)A place exempt from licensure designated by the juvenile court.
(B)A youth homelessness prevention center licensed by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1502.35 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be a placement option pursuant to this section.
(C)If the court knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the Indian child shall be detained in a home that complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), unless the court finds good cause exists pursuant to Section 361.31 not to follow the placement preferences. If the court finds good cause not to follow the placement preferences for detention, this finding does not affect the requirement that a diligent search be made for a subsequent placement within the placement preferences.
(2)Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child. As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of these persons, even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.
(3)When placing in the home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or nonrelative extended family member, the court shall consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4 of the home of the relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, including the results of a criminal records check and prior child abuse allegations, if any, before ordering that the child be placed with a relative or nonrelative extended family member. The court may authorize the placement of a child on a temporary basis in the home of a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal record exemption or resource family approval, if the court finds that the placement does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the social worker the names, residences, and any known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. The social worker shall initiate the assessment pursuant to Section 361.3 of any relative to be considered for continuing placement.
(i)In the case of an Indian child, any order detaining the child pursuant to this section shall be considered an emergency removal within the meaning of Section 1922 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The emergency proceeding shall terminate if the child is returned to the custody of the parent, parents, or Indian custodian, the child has been transferred to the custody and jurisdiction of the childs tribe, or the agency or another party to the proceeding recommends that the child be removed from the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian pursuant to Section 361 or 361.2.
(j)(1)At the initial hearing upon the petition filed in accordance with subdivision (c) of Rule 5.520 of the California Rules of Court or anytime thereafter up until the time that the minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court or a finding is made dismissing the petition, the court may temporarily limit the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child and temporarily appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child if all of the following conditions are found:
(A)The parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or unwilling to exercise educational or developmental services rights for the child.
(B)The county placing agency has made diligent efforts to locate and secure the participation of the parent or guardian in educational or developmental services decisionmaking.
(C)The childs educational and developmental services needs cannot be met without the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.
(2)If the court limits the parents educational rights under this subdivision, the court shall determine whether there is a responsible adult who is a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the child and who is available and willing to serve as the childs educational representative before appointing an educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.
(3)If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child and the appointment of a surrogate parent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 56050 of the Education Code, is not warranted, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make educational decisions for the child. If the child is receiving services from a regional center, the provision of any developmental services related to the courts decision shall be consistent with the childs individual program plan and pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500)). If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make developmental services decisions for the child, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make developmental services decisions for the child. If the court makes educational or developmental services decisions for the child, the court shall also issue appropriate orders to ensure that every effort is made to identify a responsible adult to make future educational or developmental services decisions for the child.
(4)A temporary appointment of a responsible adult and temporary limitation on the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. An order made under this section shall expire at the conclusion of the hearing held pursuant to Section 361 or upon dismissal of the petition. Upon the entering of disposition orders, additional needed limitation on the parents or guardians educational or developmental services rights shall be addressed pursuant to Section 361.
(5)This section does not remove the obligation to appoint surrogate parents for students with disabilities who are without parental representation in special education procedures, as required by state and federal law, including Section 1415(b)(2) of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 56050 of the Education Code, Section 7579.5 of the Government Code, and Rule 5.650 of the California Rules of Court.
(6)If the court appoints a developmental services decisionmaker pursuant to this section, the developmental services decisionmaker shall have the authority to access the childs information and records pursuant to subdivision (u) of Section 4514 and paragraph (23) of subdivision (a) of Section 5328, and to act on the childs behalf for the purposes of the individual program plan process pursuant to Sections 4646, 4646.5, and 4648 and the fair hearing process pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700) of Division 4.5, and as set forth in the court order.
(k)For a placement made on or after October 1, 2021, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a short-term residential therapeutic program shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(l)For a placement made on or after July 1, 2022, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a community treatment facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(m)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.(2)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing(m)(1)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation. and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing pursuant to Section 358.
(4)When(2)If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)(3)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.(n)As used in this chapter, unsupervised visitation means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.SEC. 2.Section 362.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:362.1.(a)In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
(1)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), subparagraphs (B) to (F), inclusive, for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(i)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(ii)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(C)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(D)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(E)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(i)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(ii)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.(F)To protect the safety of the child, the court may keep the childs address confidential. If the parent of the child has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child, the court shall order visitation between the child and the parent only if that order would be consistent with Section 3030 of the Family Code.
(2)Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002, for visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(3)Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16002, for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing pursuant to Section 366, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(4)If the child is a teenage parent who has custody of their child and that child is not a dependent of the court pursuant to this chapter, for visitation among the teenage parent, the childs noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teenage parent.
(b)When reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Section 361.5, the childs plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of and the relationship with any sibling pursuant to Section 16002, including their impact on placement and visitation.
(c)As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.
(d)As used in this chapter, unsupervised visitation means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.
SEC. 3.Section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:364.(a)Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. The continued hearing shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present of the date of the future hearings, of their rights to be present, and to be represented by counsel.
(b)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court describing the services offered to the family and the progress made by the family in eliminating the conditions or factors requiring court supervision. The social worker shall also make a recommendation regarding the necessity of continued supervision. A copy of this report shall be furnished to all parties at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
(c)After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or their department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.
(d)If the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a specified date, not more than six months from the time of the hearing, at which point the court shall again follow the procedure specified in subdivision (c).
(e)In any case in which the court has ordered that a parent or guardian shall retain physical custody of a child subject to supervision by a social worker, and the social worker subsequently receives a report of acts or circumstances which indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the social worker shall commence proceedings under this chapter. If, as a result of the proceedings required, the court finds that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the court shall remove the child from the care, custody, and control of the childs parent or guardian and shall commit the child to the care, custody, and control of the social worker pursuant to Section 361.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(2)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.SEC. 4.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days before the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable them to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. If visitation has not been liberalized, the report shall specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)(1)At the review hearing held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, when relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
(3)If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
(4)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
(5)If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
(6)If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
(7)In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
(8)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(9)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(10)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(11)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(12)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(13)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.(f)(1)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
(A)At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(B)The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.
(C)In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(D)For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(4)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(5)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(6)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(7)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(i)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(ii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
(A)The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. When the child is under 16 years of age, the court shall order a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. When the child is 16 years of age or older, or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501.
(B)If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
(C)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive their birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
SEC. 5.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.22.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, including visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian.
(2)(A)Except as provided in paragraph (1) and subject to subparagraph (B), if the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court finds that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall extend reunification services for an additional six months.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on competent evidence from a mental health professional that extending the time period for reunification services would be detrimental to the child, the court is not required to extend reunification services for an additional six months. The court shall state, either on the record or in writing, the reasons for its finding. Neither the passage of time nor the childs relationship with the caregiver shall be grounds, in and of themselves, for the denial of further reunification services.
(3)The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)(i)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to their country of origin and their return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(ii)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(iii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(4)The juvenile courts findings under this subdivision shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or legal guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.SEC. 6.Section 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.25.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, the subsequent permanency review hearing shall occur within 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or, in the case of a child 16 years of age or older when no other permanent plan is appropriate, another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interest of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, then the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the subsequent permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of, and nature of, any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(c)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(d)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(e)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the childs safety.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation 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 XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the childs parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the childs parents or guardians, the childs Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian childs tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350.
(b)The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parents, guardians, or Indian custodians physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following:
(1)A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child.
(2)The steps taken to provide notice to the childs parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section.
(3)If the childs parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director.
(4)The residence and the domicile of the Indian child.
(5)If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village.
(6)The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians.
(7)A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody.
(8)If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribes jurisdiction.
(9)A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.
(10)The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration.
(c)(1)The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parents or guardians physical custody.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(C)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(D)The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home.
(2)(A)The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i)A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the childs perspective, and the childs response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal.
(ii)The relationship between the child and any siblings.
(iii)The relationship between the child and other members of the household.
(iv)Any disruption to the childs schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the childs connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community.
(B)If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following:
(i)The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on.
(ii)Its determination regarding the childs placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives.
(iii)Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal.
(C)Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives.
(d)If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding.
(e)(1)If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parents or guardians home is contrary to the childs welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following:
(A)Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.
(C)It is not possible to initiate an Indian child custody proceeding as defined in Section 224.1.
(f)(1)The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social workers report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child.
(2)If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358.
(3)If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(4)In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.
(g)If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social workers report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the childs welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be vested with the county child welfare department pending the hearing held pursuant to Section 355 or further order of the court, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate.
(h)(1)(A)If the child is not released from custody, the court may order the temporary placement of the child in any of the following for a period not to exceed 15 judicial days:
(i)The home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, that has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.
(ii)The approved home of a resource family, as described in Section 16519.5, or a home licensed or approved by the Indian childs tribe.
(iii)An emergency shelter or other suitable licensed place.
(iv)A place exempt from licensure designated by the juvenile court.
(B)A youth homelessness prevention center licensed by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1502.35 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be a placement option pursuant to this section.
(C)If the court knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the Indian child shall be detained in a home that complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), unless the court finds good cause exists pursuant to Section 361.31 not to follow the placement preferences. If the court finds good cause not to follow the placement preferences for detention, this finding does not affect the requirement that a diligent search be made for a subsequent placement within the placement preferences.
(2)Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child. As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of these persons, even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.
(3)When placing in the home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or nonrelative extended family member, the court shall consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4 of the home of the relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, including the results of a criminal records check and prior child abuse allegations, if any, before ordering that the child be placed with a relative or nonrelative extended family member. The court may authorize the placement of a child on a temporary basis in the home of a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal record exemption or resource family approval, if the court finds that the placement does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the social worker the names, residences, and any known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. The social worker shall initiate the assessment pursuant to Section 361.3 of any relative to be considered for continuing placement.
(i)In the case of an Indian child, any order detaining the child pursuant to this section shall be considered an emergency removal within the meaning of Section 1922 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The emergency proceeding shall terminate if the child is returned to the custody of the parent, parents, or Indian custodian, the child has been transferred to the custody and jurisdiction of the childs tribe, or the agency or another party to the proceeding recommends that the child be removed from the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian pursuant to Section 361 or 361.2.
(j)(1)At the initial hearing upon the petition filed in accordance with subdivision (c) of Rule 5.520 of the California Rules of Court or anytime thereafter up until the time that the minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court or a finding is made dismissing the petition, the court may temporarily limit the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child and temporarily appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child if all of the following conditions are found:
(A)The parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or unwilling to exercise educational or developmental services rights for the child.
(B)The county placing agency has made diligent efforts to locate and secure the participation of the parent or guardian in educational or developmental services decisionmaking.
(C)The childs educational and developmental services needs cannot be met without the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.
(2)If the court limits the parents educational rights under this subdivision, the court shall determine whether there is a responsible adult who is a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the child and who is available and willing to serve as the childs educational representative before appointing an educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.
(3)If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child and the appointment of a surrogate parent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 56050 of the Education Code, is not warranted, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make educational decisions for the child. If the child is receiving services from a regional center, the provision of any developmental services related to the courts decision shall be consistent with the childs individual program plan and pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500)). If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make developmental services decisions for the child, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make developmental services decisions for the child. If the court makes educational or developmental services decisions for the child, the court shall also issue appropriate orders to ensure that every effort is made to identify a responsible adult to make future educational or developmental services decisions for the child.
(4)A temporary appointment of a responsible adult and temporary limitation on the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. An order made under this section shall expire at the conclusion of the hearing held pursuant to Section 361 or upon dismissal of the petition. Upon the entering of disposition orders, additional needed limitation on the parents or guardians educational or developmental services rights shall be addressed pursuant to Section 361.
(5)This section does not remove the obligation to appoint surrogate parents for students with disabilities who are without parental representation in special education procedures, as required by state and federal law, including Section 1415(b)(2) of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 56050 of the Education Code, Section 7579.5 of the Government Code, and Rule 5.650 of the California Rules of Court.
(6)If the court appoints a developmental services decisionmaker pursuant to this section, the developmental services decisionmaker shall have the authority to access the childs information and records pursuant to subdivision (u) of Section 4514 and paragraph (23) of subdivision (a) of Section 5328, and to act on the childs behalf for the purposes of the individual program plan process pursuant to Sections 4646, 4646.5, and 4648 and the fair hearing process pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700) of Division 4.5, and as set forth in the court order.
(k)For a placement made on or after October 1, 2021, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a short-term residential therapeutic program shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(l)For a placement made on or after July 1, 2022, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a community treatment facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.
(m)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(2)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.
(n)As used in this chapter, unsupervised visitation means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.
SEC. 2.Section 362.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:362.1.(a)In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of his or her their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
(1)(A)Subject to subparagraph (B), for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(i)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(ii)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(B)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(C)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(D)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available.
(E)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(i)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(ii)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.
(B)No visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child. To(F)To protect the safety of the child, the court may keep the childs address confidential. If the parent of the child has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child, the court shall order visitation between the child and the parent only if that order would be consistent with Section 3030 of the Family Code.
(2)Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002, for visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(3)Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16002, for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing pursuant to Section 366, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
(4)If the child is a teen teenage parent who has custody of his or her their child and that child is not a dependent of the court pursuant to this chapter, for visitation among the teen teenage parent, the childs noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teen teenage parent.
(b)When reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Section 361.5, the childs plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of and the relationship with any sibling pursuant to Section 16002, including their impact on placement and visitation.
(c)As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.
SEC. 3.Section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:364.(a)Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of his or her their parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. The continued hearing shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present of the date of the future hearings, of their rights to be present, and to be represented by counsel.
(b)At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court describing the services offered to the family and the progress made by the family in eliminating the conditions or factors requiring court supervision. The social worker shall also make a recommendation regarding the necessity of continued supervision. A copy of this report shall be furnished to all parties at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.
(c)After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her their department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.
(d)If the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a specified date, not more than six months from the time of the hearing, at which point the court shall again follow the procedure specified in subdivision (c).
(e)In any case in which the court has ordered that a parent or guardian shall retain physical custody of a child subject to supervision by a social worker, and the social worker subsequently receives a report of acts or circumstances which indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the social worker shall commence proceedings under this chapter. If, as a result of the proceedings required, the court finds that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the court shall remove the child from the care, custody, and control of the childs parent or guardian and shall commit the child to the care, custody, and control of the social worker pursuant to Section 361.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
(A)There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(2)A determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only when either of the following conditions are met:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.
SEC. 4.Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.21.(a)Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.
(b)Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.
(c)At least 10 calendar days before the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable them to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the childs sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. If visitation has not been liberalized, the report shall specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the childs foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregivers primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.
(d)Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Councils Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
(e)(1)At the review hearing held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, when relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
(3)If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
(4)For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
(5)If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
(6)If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.
(7)In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
(8)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
(9)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(10)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(11)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(12)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available.
(13)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.
(f)(1)The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the childs home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
(A)At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(B)The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.
(C)In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(D)For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.
(2)Regardless of whether the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(4)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(5)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(6)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available.
(7)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.
(g)If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
(1)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(i)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(ii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(2)Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.
(3)For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:
(A)The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parents ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parents arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
(B)The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(4)Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
(5)Order that the child remain in foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the courts determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the childs circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
(A)The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. When the child is under 16 years of age, the court shall order a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. When the child is 16 years of age or older, or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501.
(B)If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
(C)If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(h)In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the childs siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the childs caregiver receive the childs birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive their birth certificate.
(i)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(j)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(k)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(l)For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(1)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(2)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(3)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
SEC. 5.Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.22.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parents or legal guardians access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the childs tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. guardian, including visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the childs return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian.
(2)(A)Except as provided in paragraph (1) and subject to subparagraph (B), if the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court finds that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall extend reunification services for an additional six months.
(B)Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on competent evidence from a mental health professional that extending the time period for reunification services would be detrimental to the child, the court is not required to extend reunification services for an additional six months. The court shall state, either on the record or in writing, the reasons for its finding. Neither the passage of time nor the childs relationship with the caregiver shall be grounds, in and of themselves, for the denial of further reunification services.
(3)The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
(A)That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.
(B)That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the childs removal from the home.
(C)(i)The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to their country of origin and their return to the United States, and to provide for the childs safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(ii)For purposes of this subdivision, the courts decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.
(iii)The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.
(4)The juvenile courts findings under this subdivision shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or legal guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
(c)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)(i)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii)The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii)In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(d)This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(e)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(f)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.
SEC. 6.Section 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:366.25.(a)(1)When a case has been continued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, the subsequent permanency review hearing shall occur within 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the childs removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or parents or legal guardians ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social workers report and recommendations and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardians visits and why liberalization was contrary to the childs welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(2)Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the childs permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
(3)If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or, in the case of a child 16 years of age or older when no other permanent plan is appropriate, another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interest of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, then the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependents legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the childs relationships with individuals other than the childs siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the childs best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the subsequent permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:
(A)The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.
(B)The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
(C)Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.
(b)(1)Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:
(A)Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.
(B)A review of the amount of, and nature of, any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, extended family for the purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, the childs siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C)An evaluation of the childs medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(D)A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the childs needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E)The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relatives or adoptive parents strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the childs age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.
(F)An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(G)In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the childs tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:
(i)Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(ii)Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
(2)(A)A relative caregivers preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.
(B)Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.
(c)If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.
(d)As used in this section, relative means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words great, great-great, or grand, or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, relative as used in this section has the same meaning as relative as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
(e)(1)The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the childs welfare, and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the childs physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
(2)A determination that the parent or legal guardian was previously noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or legal guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the childs welfare.
(3)The order for visitation at the initial hearing shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
(4)When the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall make a record of its findings and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian for supervised visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available.
(5)Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Visits may take place in an agency office only in either of the following circumstances:
(A)It is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child.
(B)For the convenience of the parent or legal guardian participating in the visit.
SEC. 7.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation 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 XIIIB of the California Constitution.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Aug 15, 2024 | In committee: Held under submission. |
| Aug 5, 2024 | In committee: Referred to APPR suspense file. |
| Jul 2, 2024 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Jun 27, 2024 | Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S. |
| Jun 26, 2024 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUMAN S. (Ayes 8. Noes 2.) (June 25). |
| Jun 5, 2024 | Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUMAN S. |
| May 24, 2024 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 23, 2024 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 55. Noes 10. Page 5632.) |
| May 20, 2024 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 16, 2024 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 3.) (May 16). |
| May 8, 2024 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| May 1, 2024 | Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 30, 2024 | Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 29, 2024 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (April 23). |
| Apr 11, 2024 | Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S. |
| Apr 10, 2024 | Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 9, 2024 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 2.) (April 9). |
| Apr 2, 2024 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Mar 4, 2024 | Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S. |
| Feb 16, 2024 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 17. |
| Feb 15, 2024 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2024 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jul 1, 2024 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Human Services |
Passed |
|
| Jun 25, 2024 | Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Human Services] | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| May 23, 2024 | AB 2752 Calderon Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 16, 2024 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 23, 2024 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services |
Passed |
|
| Apr 9, 2024 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Human Services] | Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| All of Us or None Los Angeles | ** Support | |
| Bar Association of San Francisco | ** Support | |
| California Alliance Of Child And Family Services | * Support | Jul 1, 2024 |
| California County Welfare Directors Association | * Against | Jul 1, 2024 |
| California Lawyers Association, Family Law Section | ** Support | |
| California Public Defenders Association | ** Support | |
| Children'S Law Center Of California | * Support | Jul 1, 2024 |
| Dependency Advocacy Center | * Support | Jul 1, 2024 |
| Dependency Legal Services | * Support | Jul 1, 2024 |
| Disability Rights California | ** Support | |
| Families Inspiring Reentry and Reunification 4 Everyone | ** Support | |
| Legal Services for Prisoners with Children | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. | ** Support | |
| National Center for Youth Law | ** Support | |
| Public Counsel | ** Support | |
| Root & Rebound | ** Support | |
| Seneca Family of Agencies | ** Support | |
| The Law Offices of Dale Wilson | ** Support |
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular Session
AB 2752 (Calderon) - Juvenile court: visitation
Version: June 27, 2024 | Policy Vote: JUD. 8 - 2, HUMAN S. 4 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 5, 2024 | Consultant: Liah Burnley |
Bill Summary:
AB 2752 modifies the standards under which a juvenile court must order visitation, including unsupervised visitation, between a dependent child and their parent or guardian during the dependency process.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs (General Fund, federal funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county child welfare agencies. This bill requires social workers and probation officers to include additional information in the report they are required to provide the court for a foster child’s review hearing. The bill also permits the court to order, in specified circumstances, a county child welfare agency to assess the proposed supervisor for supervised visitation. Actual costs will depend on the number of applicable cases and the amount of time needed to complete the additional workload added by these duties. There are currently more than 40,000 youth in foster care in California. Although these county costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable but instead must be paid by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the 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.
Background:
When a child is removed from their parent’s custody, decisions about the child’s welfare are made through court dependency proceedings. Generally, a social worker will provide the court with information about the parent’s abuse or neglect of the child and the court determines whether removing the child from their parent’s custody is in the child’s best interest. Once a child has been removed from their parent’s custody, the court initiates a reunification plan, which includes arrangements for the child’s care and steps the parent can take to remedy the situation and re-obtain custody of the child. The court may also order supervised or unsupervised visits between the parent and the child. Existing law generally provides the court discretion over whether to order visitation and the terms of visitation, unless the court determines visitation would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
Proposed Law:
Provides that at the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing.
Provides that if at the initial petition hearing the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
Provides that visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
Provides for the following process regarding visitation at the disposition hearing:
The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
Requires a social worker, in their supplemental report filed prior to a 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month hearing, if visitation has not been liberalized, to specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare
Requires the court at the 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month hearing to make an order addressing visitation under the same conditions.
Adds visitation to the list of factors that the court must consider at a permanency hearing in determining whether reasonable reunification services were provided.
Provides that, if a court makes the findings necessary to continue a case from the 18-month hearing to the 24-month hearing, the court’s findings constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent and child does not need to be supervised, and that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: | AB 2752 | ||
Author: | Calderon | ||
Version: | June 27, 2024 | Hearing Date: | July 1, 2024 |
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Heather Hopkins | ||
Subject: Juvenile court: visitation
SUMMARY
This bill modifies the standards under which a juvenile court must order visitation, including unsupervised visitation, between a dependent child and their parent or guardian during the dependency process.
ABSTRACT
Existing Law:
- Requires a social worker who files a dependency petition with the court to file a supplemental report prior to the initial petition hearing, and prior to subsequent review hearings, that sets forth the reasons why the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parents or guardians and, in the case of subsequent review hearings, the reasons for returning or not returning the child to the physical custody of the parent or guardian. Requires the court to review the supplemental report and make findings, as specified. (WIC 319(b)(f), 364(b), 366.21(c))
- Requires the court hearing the dependency petition referenced in 1) above to order the release of the child from custody unless a showing has been made that the child falls within the jurisdiction of the court because the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. If the court orders the child detained, it shall state the facts on which the decision is based and state why the initial removal was necessary. (WIC 300, 319 (c)(g))
- Requires any court order placing a child in foster care, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Specifies that no visitation shall jeopardize the safety of the child. (WIC 362.1 (a)(A)(B))
- Provides that at every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of parent or guardian, the court shall terminate the jurisdiction unless the social worker establishes by a preponderance of evidence that continuing jurisdiction and supervision is necessary. (WIC 364)
- Requires the court to hold a permanency review hearing within 18 months, or, if continued, within 24 months, after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of the parent or guardian. After considering the relevant evidence, the court shall order the child returned to the physical custody of the parent or guardian, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of the child would create a substantial risk to safety or physical or emotional well-being of the child. Requires the court to review the social worker’s report, as specified. (WIC 366.22-366.25)
This Bill:
- Provides that at the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing.
- Provides that if at the initial petition hearing the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety. Provides that visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Provides for the following process regarding visitation at the disposition hearing:
- The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
- The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
- If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
- The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.
- Requires a social worker, in their supplemental report filed prior to a 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month hearing, if visitation has not been liberalized, to specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare
- Requires the court at the 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month hearing to make an order addressing visitation under the same conditions as 3) above.
- Adds visitation to the list of factors that the court must consider at a permanency hearing in determining whether reasonable reunification services were provided.
- Provides that, if a court makes the findings necessary to continue a case from the 18-month hearing to the 24-month hearing, the court’s findings constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent and child does not need to be supervised, and that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, “Costs (General Fund, federal funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county child welfare agencies. This bill requires social workers and probation officers to include additional information in the report they are required to provide the court for a foster child’s review hearing. The bill also permits the court to order, in specified circumstances, a county child welfare agency to assess the proposed supervisor for supervised visitation. Actual costs will depend on the number of applicable cases and the amount of time needed to complete the additional workload added by these duties. There are currently more than 40,000 youth in foster care in California.
“Although these county costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable but instead must be paid by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the 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.
“According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the
tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.”
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the Bill:
According to the author, “Current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary. Finding trained monitors is a long and expensive process, which often results in delayed visitations. Many visits are also scheduled in restrictive settings that are not conducive to quality family time. Research shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification.”
The author goes on to say, “AB 2752 remedies these problems by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification."
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 2023, the state’s child welfare agencies received 433,571 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 47,845 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 18,147 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system.
After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services are provided to children who are able to remain safely in their home while the family receives services. This is considered family preservation services and the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.
If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.
Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system, time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.
In some circumstances, existing law allows the court to not provide reunification services at all, and parental rights are terminated without the opportunity for reunification. These circumstances include, but are not limited to the following examples: when the whereabouts of the parent are unknown; when the parent is suffering from a mental disability, as provided, that renders the parent incapable of utilizing those services; when the parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect; after a finding of severe sexual abuse; when the parent has been convicted of a violent felony, as provided; and in some instances where a prior child of the parent became a dependent of the court and was unable to reunify.
Visitation
Under California Rules of Court 5.670, the court must make orders at the initial hearing regarding visitation between the child and the parents, siblings and other relatives. The order regarding visitation is based on an assessment of whether such contact would be beneficial or determinate to the child. In its orders, the court can specify the frequency and manner of contact and may additionally place other restrictions it deems necessary. These visitation orders are in place until the jurisdiction hearing.
If a child is found to come under the jurisdiction of the dependency court, at the disposition hearing a case plan will be discussed. A critical part of the case plan is visitation and visitation is a key part of reunification. Under existing law, visitation must be arranged to occur as frequently as possible consistent with the well-being of the child. The frequency and duration of visits may be limited and other conditions, such as supervision, may be imposed if necessary to protect the child’s emotional well-being. This bill seeks to change that standard to a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation.
Related/Prior Legislation:
AB 937 (McKinnor, Chapter 458, Statutes of 2023) required a juvenile court to order, except in specified very limited circumstances, six additional months of reunification services to a parent or guardian when the court finds at a permanency review hearing that reasonable reunification services have not been provided to the parent or guardian.
AB 954 (Bryan, Chapter 552, Statutes of 2023) clarifies that a parent or guardian shall not be considered to be non-compliant with the court-ordered case plan when there is evidence that the parent or guardian is unable to pay for a court-ordered service, or when payment for a service would create an undue financial hardship to the parent or guardian.
SB 578 (Ashby, Chapter 618, Statutes of 2023) required a social worker to report on, and a juvenile court to consider, the potential harms that may result from removing a child from their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian’s custody; and, if the child is or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, requires the social worker to report on what efforts have been made to contact the child’s tribe.
AB 2159 (Bryan, Chapter 691, Statutes of 2022) prohibited a court from denying reunification services to parents and guardians in custody prior to conviction and sentencing.
SB 1085 (Kamlager, Chapter 832, Statutes of 2022) prohibited a child from being found to be a dependent of the juvenile court solely due to: homelessness; indigence or other conditions of financial difficulty, including, but not limited to, poverty or the inability to provide or obtain clothing, home or property repair, or childcare. SB 1085 also stated legislative intent that families not be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court nor should children be separated from their parents based on conditions of financial difficulty, including but not limited to, a lack of food, clothing, shelter, or childcare.
AB 788 (Calderon, Chapter 201, Statutes of 2021) clarified the meaning of "resisted" within current provisions that enable a juvenile dependency court to deny reunification services for a parent with a history of drug or alcohol use disorders.
AB 841 (Cunningham, Chapter 98, Statutes of 2021) prohibited a child from being found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court solely due to the failure of the child's parent or alleged parent to pursue court orders seeking custody of the child.
SB 977 (Liu, Chapter, 219, Statutes of 2014) imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts, a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance use disorder treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. Further required courts to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent in these situations, as specified.
COMMENTS
On overriding concern and focus in dependency cases is the best interest of the child. This can be seen in Rules of Court and the Welfare and Institutions Code and guides decisions the court makes, including visitation. What is at question in this bill is how the court makes visitation orders at the detention hearing as well as at the 6-month, 12-month, 18-month and 24-month review. Under existing law, visitation must be arranged to occur as frequently as possible consistent with the well-being of the child. The frequency and duration of visits may be limited and other conditions, such as supervision, may be imposed if necessary to protect the child’s emotional well-being. This bill would instead change the standard to be a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation. Specifically, the court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. As with all matters in dependency proceedings, a key consideration in this proposed change is – which standard is in the best interest of the child?
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION
Arguments in Support:
California Alliance of Child and Family Services writes, “As children are removed from their parents and supervised visits are ordered, children may go weeks without seeing their parents. If a family cannot provide an approved monitor, current law does not require the agency to provide one. As a result, visits often do not happen at all…Since statutory hearings are scheduled in six-month increments, a family that is safe to enjoy unsupervised visits may be left with unnecessary restrictions. This is devastating to a child who may not understand what is happening. AB 2752 requires the juvenile court to order unsupervised visitation time between a parent or legal guardian and their child unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation will harm the physical or emotional health of the child.”
Arguments in Opposition:
County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) writes, “CWDA has been in ongoing conversation with the author’s office regarding AB 2752 but unfortunately remains opposed to the bill. While CWDA appreciates the author’s intent to ensure parents in the child welfare system, especially non-offending, non-custodial parents, have appropriate visitation schedules, CWDA believes those decisions are best made on an individual basis between all court parties, including the judge. The bill in print would also increase costs due to the additional case planning and court time for social workers that we believe will result.”
PRIOR VOTES
Senate Judiciary Committee: | 8 – 2 |
Assembly Floor: | 55 - 10 |
Assembly Appropriations Committee: | 11 - 3 |
Assembly Judiciary Committee: | 9 - 2 |
POSITIONS
Support:
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC. (Sponsor)
Dependency Legal Services (Co-Sponsor)
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children (Co-Sponsor)
All of Us or None Los Angeles
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Lawyers Association, Family Law Section
Disability Rights California
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
Root & Rebound
Seneca Family of Agencies
Oppose:
County Welfare Directors Association of California
-- END --
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2023-2024 Regular Session
Bill No: AB 2752 (Author:Calderon)
Version: April 30, 2024
Hearing Date: June 25, 2024
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
Consultant: AWM
SUBJECT
Juvenile court: visitation
DIGEST
This bill modifies the standards under which a juvenile court must order visitation, including unsupervised visitation, between a dependent child and their parent or guardian during the dependency process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment may be deemed dependents of the juvenile court and provided with services, supports, and interventions aimed at protecting them and their health and safety. The system aims to preserve and strengthen families by maintaining or reuniting children with their parents whenever appropriate. When a child has been removed from a parent’s physical custody but the parent’s parental rights have not been terminated, a juvenile court generally must order reunification services for the parent to try and remedy the issues that led to juvenile jurisdiction in the first instance. If the court determines that reunification services are appropriate, the court must also order visitation between the parent and child unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the child. Current law does not, however, address when the court should order supervised or unsupervised visits.
According to the author and sponsors, the lack of guidance on whether to order supervised or unsupervised visitation has led courts to default to supervised visitation, even when there is no particular risk posed by unsupervised visitation. The author and sponsors report that an order of supervised visitation can, as a practical matter, inhibit visitation entirely due to a lack of available supervisors; alternatively, it can space out visits in a way that harms the existing parent-child relationship.
This bill is intended to provide better guidance to juvenile courts on when to order supervised or unsupervised visits beginning at the dispositional hearing, and clarify that the presumption should be for unsupervised visits, absent a showing of a specific risk of present harm, for parents for whom reunification services have been ordered. The bill also requires a juvenile court to make a visitation order at the initial petition hearing, without a presumption as to whether the visit is supervised or unsupervised. The author has agreed to certain amendments to bring the scope of the unsupervised visitation presumption more in line with federally recommended best practices.
This bill is sponsored by the Dependency Advocacy Center, Dependency Legal Services, and Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., and is supported by 15 organizations, including the Children’s Law Center of California and the National Center for Youth Law. This bill is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association. If this Committee passes this bill, it will then be heard by the Senate Human Services Committee.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW
Existing law:
- Establishes the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction over minors who are suffering, or are at substantial risk of suffering harm or abuse and may adjudge the minor to be a dependent of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)
- Provides the following:
- That the purpose of California’s juvenile court law is to provide for the protection of the safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties whenever possible, removing the child from the custody of their parents only when necessary for their welfare or for the safety and protection of the public; if removal of a minor is determined by the juvenile court to be necessary, reunification of the minor with their family shall be a primary objective. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202(a).)
- That the purpose of the juvenile court and the dependency system is to provide the maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, being neglected, or being exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of that harm. This safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being may include the provision of a full array of social and health services to help the child and family and to prevent the reabuse of children. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2.)
- Provides that, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian[1] and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
- For visitation between the parent and the child, which shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the wellbeing of the child; however, no visitation order shall jeopardize the safety of the child, and the court may keep the child’s address confidential, or limit visitation with a parent who has been convicted of the murder of the other parent, as specified, to protect the child’s safety.
- For visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or wellbeing of either child.
- For review of the reasons of any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.
- If the child is a teen parent who has custody of their child and that child is not a dependent of the court, for visitation among the teen parent, the child’s noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teen parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1(a).)
- Provides that, when reunification services are not ordered for the parent, the child’s plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of, and the relationship with, any siblings, including their impact on placement and visitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1(b).)
- Defines “sibling,” for purposes of 3) and 4), as a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1(c).)
- Requires, subject to certain exceptions, whenever a child has been removed from the custody of their parent or guardian,[2] the juvenile court to order the social worker to provide child welfare services to the child and the child’s parents; the welfare services shall include family reunification services as follows:
- For a child who was three years or older at the time of removal from the physical custody of their parent, court-ordered services shall be provided for a period of up to 12 months from the date the child entered foster care, with the potential for two six-month extensions if certain conditions are met (for a total of 24 months of reunification services).
- For a child who was under three years on the date of the removal from the physical custody of their parent, court-ordered services shall be provided for a period of six months, but no longer than 12 months, from the date the child entered foster care. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.5(a) & (a)(1), 366.21, 366.22.)
- Requires a court, as part of its determination of whether to return a child to the custody of their parents, to consider whether the parent has failed to contact and visit the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21(e)(5).)
- Provides that a court must find, among other factors, that a parent has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child before extending reunification services to 18 or 24 months from the date that the child was taken from the custody of their parent. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21(g); 366.22(b).)
- Provides that, when a court determines that a permanency hearing shall be held and terminates reunification services, the court shall continue to permit the parent to continue to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.21(h), 366.22(a)(3), 366.25(a).)
This bill:
- Defines “unsupervised visitation” as contact between a parent and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.
- Requires a juvenile court, at an initial petition hearing, to make an order regarding visitation between the child and parent.
- The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing.
- If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent to supervise the visitation.
- If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both the parent and the child are available.
- The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to family time.
- Provides that, when a court makes an order regarding visitation at a dispositional hearing, the court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and either of the following circumstances exist:
- Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for this finding.
- There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of the Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
- Requires an order for visitation under 2) to set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.
- Provides that, if a court makes an order for supervised visitation under 2), the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both the parent and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- Provides that visits ordered under 2) shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to family time.
- Requires a social worker, in their supplemental report filed prior to a 6-month, 12-month, 18-month, or 24-month hearing, if visitation has not been liberalized, to specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare; and for the court, at those hearings, to make an order addressing visitation under the same conditions as 3)-6).
- Adds visitation to the list of factors that the court must consider at a permanency hearing in determining whether reasonable reunification services were provided.
- Provides that, if a court makes the findings necessary to continue a case from the 18-month hearing to the 24-month hearing, the court’s findings constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent and child does not need to be supervised, and that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
COMMENTS
- Author’s comment
According to the author:
Current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary. Finding trained monitors is a long and expensive process, which often results in delayed visitations. Many visits are also scheduled in restrictive settings that are not conducive to quality family time. Research shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification.
AB 2752 remedies these problems by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification.
2. Background on the dependency process and parental visitation
The overarching purpose of the juvenile court is to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each child under the court’s jurisdiction and, where possible, to preserve and strengthen the child’s family ties so that a child is removed from their parent’s custody only when necessary for the child’s welfare or the safety and protection of the public.[3] The juvenile court may determine that a child is a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, serious physical harm, abuse, or neglect.[4] “ ‘Although the harm or risk of harm to the child [for jurisdictional purposes] must generally be the result of an act, omission or inability of one of the parents or guardians, the central focus of dependency jurisdiction is clearly on the child rather than the parent.’ ”[5]
When a child is determined to be a dependent of the juvenile court, the court may begin proceedings to remove the child from the custody of their parent(s), or, if the child has been removed on an emergency basis, to determine whether the child should be returned to parental custody.[6] If, after a series of hearings, a parent is found to be unfit, the court can terminate the parent’s parental rights.[7] When a child is removed, however, “reunification of the minor with [their] family shall be a primary objective.”[8] To that end, when a child has been removed from a parent’s physical custody but the parent’s parental rights have not been terminated, a juvenile court generally must order reunification services for the parent to try and remedy the issues that led to juvenile jurisdiction in the first instance, such as parenting classes or drug or alcohol treatment.[9] These “[f]amily reunification services play a critical role in dependency proceedings” and should be “tailored to the particular needs of the family.”[10]
Additionally, “[v]isitation is a necessary and integral component of reunification plan.”[11] When a juvenile court orders reunification, it must also order visitation between the parent and child unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the child.[12] “Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child.”[13] Visitation is essential “to maintain ties between the parent” and the child and “to provide relevant information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of” their parent.[14] In subsequent hearings on whether to reunify the parent and child or continue the matter, the juvenile court will consider, among other factors, the frequency of visitation.[15] If a child welfare agency “limits visitation in the absence of evidence showing the [parent’s] behavior has jeopardized or will jeopardize the child’s safety, it unreasonably forecloses reunification…and does not constitute reasonable services.”[16]
The United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has recently provided guidance on the importance of family time, particularly unsupervised family time, for children in out-of-home care to see their parents.[17] The ACF cites, as best practices, statutes that establish a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation,[18] and specifically recommends that states “[c]reate and promote practices that presumes family time should be unsupervised absent an identified present danger of harm.”[19]
3. Current law provides no guidance on when a court should order supervised or unsupervised visitation
Current law is silent on whether court-ordered visitation should be supervised or unsupervised. Current law also fails to set forth factors that a juvenile court should consider in determining whether to order supervised or unsupervised visitation. Stakeholders report that, as a result, courts nearly always default to supervised visits, regardless of the circumstances of the case.
According to the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents children in dependency proceedings in Los Angeles, Placer, and Sacramento Counties, “only granting supervised visits without taking into consideration the circumstances of the removal of the child” deprives children “of much-needed family time”:
As children are removed from their parents and supervised visits are ordered, children may go weeks without seeing their parents. If a family cannot provide an approved monitor, current law does not require the agency to provide one. As a result, visits often do not happen at all… Since statutory hearings are scheduled in six-month increments, a family that is safe to enjoy unsupervised visits may be left with unnecessary restrictions. This is devastating to a child who may not understand what is happening.
The ACF guidance specifically recommends against a standardized approach to visitation that defaults to supervised visitation.[20]
4. This bill requires a juvenile court to address visitation with the parent at the initial petition hearing, and establishes a presumption for unsupervised visitation beginning at the dispositional hearing, which can be overcome if certain conditions are met
This bill modifies California’s laws regarding visitation between a parent and a dependent child, by establishing a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, beginning at the dispositional hearing, unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation presents specific risks to the child based on the facts of the case. The presumption of visitation is limited to a parent for whom reunification services has been ordered; if the court determines that reunification is not in the child’s best interest, the presumption will not apply.
The bill also provides that, if the court orders supervised visitation, it must set forth the factual basis for the order. Additionally, if the court orders supervised visits, the court must order that the child welfare agency may liberalize the visitation to unsupervised visits, unless the court specifically finds that such discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety. Furthermore, the bill requires that, if visitations are not liberalized, the county welfare agency must explain (1) what efforts were made to liberalize the visits, and (2) why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. The author has agreed to amend the bill to conform the presumption for unsupervised visitation to language approved by the federal government.
The bill also requires a juvenile court to make an order regarding visitation at the initial petition hearing, rather than waiting for the dispositional hearing; at this early stage, however, there is no presumption as to whether the visitation should be supervised or unsupervised.
In all cases, the bill requires that visits should take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to family time.
5. Amendments
As noted above, the author has agreed, in response to concerns from the Committee and stakeholders, to modify the presumption for unsupervised visitation, so that it more closely adheres to the language used in the ACF guidance. This language will not replace the provision requiring the court to address visitation at the initial hearing; it will be implemented at the disposition hearing and onward. The language is as follows, subject to any nonsubstantive technical or conforming changes the Office of Legislative Counsel may make:
Amendments
In all sections of the bill establishing a presumption for unsupervised visitation at the dispositional hearing stage and later, the presumption shall be as follows:
“The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would present an identified danger of present harm to the child, and there is no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.”
6. Arguments in support
According to Dependency Legal Services, one of the bill’s sponsors:
In 2021, Congress unanimously passed HB 1194, allowing the presumption that family time visits should be unsupervised unless there is a determination that the child is in danger. Existing law in California does not specify factors to consider when determining whether supervised visits are necessary to protect the health and safety of the child. As a result, most child welfare agencies typically insist that the parent’s contact with the child is supervised by default.
Profound damage is caused when a child is separated from their parent, and requiring supervised family time without considering the circumstances of the family’s separation merely exacerbates that damage. According to the Children’s Bureau, regular family visits expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification. Removal of a child from a parent’s care does not necessarily mean negligence and abuse occurred by the parents. A child may be removed because the home environment poses a risk to the child. Likewise, the inability of a parent to provide the appropriate resources to care for a child may result in their removal. Children living in poverty are more likely to be reported to a child welfare agency, with 47% of families who have children placed in the system living below the federal poverty guidelines. A comparative study between states that adopted a state-level Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) found that states offering the credit saw an 11% decrease in foster care entries compared to states without the state-level EITC. By only granting supervised visits without taking into consideration the circumstances of the removal of the child, children are deprived of much-needed family time…
AB 2752 requires the juvenile court to order unsupervised visitation time between a parent or legal guardian and their child, unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation will harm the physical or emotional health of the child. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. This bill would also ensure that visits take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
7. Arguments in opposition
According to the County Welfare Directors Association:
While CWDA appreciates the author’s intent to ensure parents in the child welfare system, especially non-offending, non-custodial parents, have appropriate visitation schedules, CWDA believes those decisions are best made on an individual basis between all court parties, including the judge. CWDA also opposes prohibiting supervised visitations from child welfare offices unless the physical safety of the child is at risk. County child welfare agencies strive to have welcoming visitation rooms to foster connections for parents and children on site while allowing for supervised visitation and observation. We look forward to engaging with the author on these important issues to improve our child welfare system and ensure that families have the best chance to reunify.
SUPPORT
Dependency Advocacy Center (co-sponsor)
Dependency Legal Services (co-sponsor)
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. (co-sponsor)
A New Way of Life Reentry Project
All of Us or None
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Lawyer’s Association, Family Law Section
California Public Defenders Association
Children’s Law Center of California
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations
Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
Root & Rebound
Seneca Family of Agencies
The Law Offices of Dale S. Wilson
OPPOSITION
County Welfare Directors Association
RELATED LEGISLATION
Pending Legislation: None known.
Prior Legislation: SB 1021 (Durazo, 2020) would have provided that, when a juvenile court orders a child detained at the initial petition hearing, the court shall not restrict visitation between a parent and child any more than necessary to ensure the child’s safety and wellbeing; and that, if a juvenile court orders visitation at a status review hearing, the court shall consider specified factors in determining the specific visitation plan, SB 1021 was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee due to COVID-19-related bill limits.
PRIOR VOTES:
Assembly Floor (Ayes 55, Noes 10)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 11, Noes 3)
Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 5, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 2)
**************
Going forward, this analysis uses “parent” to include “guardian.” ↑
Going forward, this analysis uses “parent” to include “guardian.” ↑
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202(a). ↑
Id., § 300. ↑
In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622, 626. ↑
Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 305, 319, 325, 355, 361.3. ↑
See id., §§ 360, 361.3, 366.26. ↑
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202(a). ↑
Id., § 361.5. ↑
In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1, 13. ↑
In re C.C. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1489 (internal quotation marks omitted). ↑
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1; see also In re F.P. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 966, 973 (“If visitation is inconsistent with the well-being of the child, or would be detrimental to the child, the juvenile court has the discretion to deny such contact.”). ↑
Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.1. ↑
Ibid. ↑
Id., §§ 366.21, 366.22. ↑
Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1427. ↑
See ACF, Bulletin re Family Time and visitation for children and youth in out-of-home care, Log No. ACYF-CB-IM-20-02 (Feb. 5, 2020) (ACF Bulletin). ↑
Id. at pp. 6-8. ↑
Id. at p. 13. ↑
Id. at p. 2. ↑
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 2752
Author:(Calderon)
As Amended Ver:April 30, 2024
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires a court to order unsupervised visitation between a dependent child and parents or a legal guardian, unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would create a substantial danger to the physical or emotional health of the child.
Major Provisions
- Recasts an existing provision in the Welfare & Institutions Code that prohibits the court from issuing a visitation order that jeopardizes the safety of a child.
- Requires a court, at a dependency review hearing, to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child.
- Provides that if the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order and shall order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child's safety.
- Specifies that a determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child's welfare.
- Requires orders for visitation to provide a level of frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Requires that visits between a dependent children and their parents or guardians shall take place in least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Requires a social worker, when filing a supplemental report with the court prior to a hearing, to specify, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts have been put in place to liberalize the parent's or guardian's visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child's welfare. Requires a court to review and consider the social worker's report.
- Provides that, if the juvenile court does not return the child to the parent or guardian at the final permanency review hearing, the juvenile court’s findings shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent or guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Specifies that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
COMMENTS
Recasting the presumptions in existing law. California's juvenile dependency law allows a court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child's parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. When these conditions occur, the child is typically placed with other family members or in the foster care system, until such time as the child can safely be returned to the parent or guardian, placed in a permanent foster home, or adopted. While existing law recognizes the need to protect a child from dangerous or potentially harmful situations, the law simultaneously favors promoting contact (and eventual reunification) between dependent children and their families so long as it will not endanger the child. In order to promote contact and eventual reunification, the court is authorized to permit visitation between the dependent child and parents or legal guardian; however, the law prohibits any visitation that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill would recast existing law by requiring a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or guardian and a dependent child, unless it finds that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial danger to the child's welfare and the child cannot be protected without supervised visitation. The bill, in short, seeks to create a "rebuttable presumption" in favor of unsupervised visitation. It would place the burden on the social worker assigned to the case, or the county child welfare agency more generally, to provide evidence that unsupervised visitations would endanger the child in a case where supervised visits were recommended. Thus, while existing law authorizes visitation when the child has been removed from the home, this bill would create a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, unless that presumption is overcome by a showing that harm will result. The bill recognizes that, in some cases, the evidence will justify supervised visitation only. If that is the case, however, the bill would require the court to state findings that explain why supervision is necessary. Moreover, if supervision is necessary, supervised visits must be the least restrictive possible. The bill would also require social workers to specify in their reports to the court why unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child's welfare and what efforts have been made to liberalize visitation between the child and their parent or guardian.
In sum, this bill, consistent with long-established policy in favor of promoting contact and eventual reunification between foster youth and their parents and guardians, creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, on the theory that the less restrictive the terms of visitation orders, the more likely that the visits will lessen the trauma of family separation and promote quality family time. Unsupervised visitation, the author and supporters believe, will better aid the goal of family reunification in appropriate cases. However, as is the case with existing law, under this bill visitation would still be appropriately limited upon a showing that unsupervised visitation would endanger the child.
Opposition concerns. The bill is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California. CWDA agrees with the established policy in favor of promoting contact and regular visitation between parents or guardians and dependent children, especially non-offending or non-custodial parents. However, CWDA opposes rebuttable presumptions in favor of permitting judges and interested parties to have the discretion to handle each situation on a case-by-case basis. CWDA also oppose provisions in the bill that would limit to possibility of holding supervised visitations in child welfare offices.
It should be stressed, however, that both the author and CWDA agree that the state's preferred policy is to promote connection and eventual reunification, while at the same time recognizing that in some situations unsupervised visitations may endanger the child. The difference, therefore, concerns starting presumptions and the corresponding burden of proof. The author believes that creating a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation will appropriately shift the burden of proof to social workers and county child welfare agencies to show that unsupervised visitation would pose a danger to the child. Given the importance that the state policy devotes to parental rights and the policy preference for continuing contact and eventual family reunification, imposing the burden on local agencies may be appropriate.
According to the Author
According to the author, "current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary." This is unfortunate because, the author contends, research "shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification." The author believes that this bill will remedy the situation "by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification."
Arguments in Support
The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) supports this bill because it will "create a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in the foster system are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In doing so, this bill would promote quality family time early in a case to reduce the trauma of a child’s removal from their parents." NCYL notes that this bill is consistent with recent trends in federal law, noting that in 2021 "Congress unanimously passed HB 1194, allowing the presumption that family time visits should be unsupervised unless there is a determination that the child is in danger." NCYL contends that existing law in California does not specify factors to consider when determining whether supervised visits are necessary to protect the health and safety of the child. "As a result," NCYL concludes, "most child welfare agencies typically insist that the parent's contact with the child is supervised by default." This bill will effectively reverse that default position by creating a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation.
Arguments in Opposition
The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California writes that it "appreciates the author's intent to ensure parents in the child welfare system, especially non-offending, non-custodial parents, have appropriate visitation schedules." However, CWDA believes that "those decisions are best made on an individual basis between all court parties, including the judge." CWDA also opposes the provision prohibiting supervised visitations in child welfare offices unless the physical safety of the child is at risk, claiming that "child welfare agencies strive to have welcoming visitation rooms to foster connections for parents and children on site while allowing for supervised visitation and observation." CWDA concludes, however, by expressing its desire to engage "with the author on these important issues to improve our child welfare system and ensure that families have the best chance to reunify."
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis, costs (General Fund, federal funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county child welfare agencies. This bill requires social workers and probation officers to include additional information in the report they are required to provide the court for a foster child's review hearing. The bill also permits the court to order, in specified circumstances, a county child welfare agency to assess the proposed supervisor for supervised visitation. Actual costs will depend on the number of applicable cases and the amount of time needed to complete the additional workload added by these duties. There are currently more than 40,000 youth in foster care in California.
Although these county costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable but instead must be paid by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the 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.
According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.
VOTES
ASM JUDICIARY: 9-2-1
YES: Kalra, Ting, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes
NO: Dixon, Sanchez
ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron
ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 5-0-2
YES: Lee, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega
ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Mathis
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-3-1
YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Villapudua
NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta
ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson
UPDATED
VERSION: April 30, 2024
CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003074
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2752
Author:(Calderon) – As Amended Ver:April 30, 2024
Policy Committee: | Judiciary | Vote: | 9 - 2 |
Human Services | 5 - 0 | ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires, during a specified child dependency proceeding, the court to order unsupervised visits between a parent and child unless doing so is contrary to the child’s welfare, and makes other changes to court-ordered visitation in dependency cases.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Costs (General Fund, federal funds) of an unknown but potentially significant amount to county child welfare agencies. This bill requires social workers and probation officers to include additional information in the report they are required to provide the court for a foster child’s review hearing. The bill also permits the court to order, in specified circumstances, a county child welfare agency to assess the proposed supervisor for supervised visitation. Actual costs will depend on the number of applicable cases and the amount of time needed to complete the additional workload added by these duties. There are currently more than 40,000 youth in foster care in California.
Although these county costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable but instead must be paid by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 provides that legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the 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.
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
Current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary. Finding trained monitors is a long and expensive process, which often results in delayed visitations. Many visits are also scheduled in restrictive settings that are not conducive to quality family time. Research shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification….Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification.
- Background. When a child is removed from their parent’s custody, decisions about the child’s welfare are made through court dependency proceedings. Generally, a social worker will provide the court with information about the parent’s abuse or neglect of the child and the court determines whether removing the child from their parent’s custody is in the child’s best interest. Once a child has been removed from their parent’s custody, the court initiates a reunification plan, which includes arrangements for the child’s care and steps the parent can take to remedy the situation and re-obtain custody of the child. The court may also order supervised or unsupervised visits between the parent and the child. Existing law generally provides the court discretion over whether to order visitation and the terms of visitation, unless the court determines visitation would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill requires a court, at an initial petition hearing, make an order regarding visitation between the parent and child. Additionally, at a dependency review hearing, the bill requires the court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent and child unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and specified related conditions are met. If the court chooses to instead grant supervised visitation, the court must specify the factual basis for that decision in its order. These provisions essentially establish a rebuttable presumption in favor of granting unsupervised visitation – the bill makes unsupervised visitation the norm unless there is evidence that doing so would pose a safety risk to the child that cannot be mitigated except through supervision at visits, or that the parent is likely to flee the court’s jurisdiction.
The bill also provides that if the court orders supervised visitation, the court must order the county child welfare agency to assess the person proposed to supervise the visits, and sets out additional guidelines for how and where visitation must be conducted and other factors for the court’s consideration in making visitation orders.
Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Alex Lee, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2752 (
Author:Calderon) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2024
SUBJECT: Juvenile court: visitation
SUMMARY: Revises requirements for supervised and unsupervised visits between a parent and child involved in the dependency process. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires a court, at a dependency review hearing, to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child.
- Requires, if the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order and to order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee is required to supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. Requires the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- Prohibits a determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, from being the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
- Requires orders for visitation to provide a level of frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Requires that visits between a dependent children and their parents or guardians to take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Requires a social worker, when filing a supplemental report with the court prior to a hearing, to specify, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts have been put in place to liberalize the parent’s or guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. Requires a court to review and consider the social worker’s report.
- Provides that, if the juvenile court does not return the child to the parent or guardian at the final permanency review hearing, the juvenile court’s findings constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent or guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Requires any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation to bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Recasts an existing provision that prohibits the court from issuing a visitation order that jeopardizes the safety of a child.
- Sets forth the following requirements at the initial petition hearing following the removal of a youth from their home as a result of allegations of abuse or neglect:
- Requires the court, at the initial petition hearing, to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian;
- Requires the order to set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and to specify whether the visitation will be supervised pending the disposition hearing;
- Requires, if the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order, and to order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation;
- Requires, if, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee to supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available;
- Requires the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety; and,
- Requires visits to take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Specifies that in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:
- Requires, subject to b) through f) below, for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child, visitation to be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. Further requires the court to order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:
- There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation; or,
- There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
- Prohibits a determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, from being the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare;
- Requires the order for visitation to set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation will be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation;
- Requires, if the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order, and to order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. Requires, if, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee to supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. Requires the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety; and,
- Requires visits to take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires a social worker who files a dependency petition with the court to file a supplemental report prior to the initial petition hearing, and prior to subsequent review hearings, that sets forth the reasons why the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parents or guardians and, in the case of subsequent review hearings, the reasons for returning or not returning the child to the physical custody of the parent or guardian. Requires the court to review the supplemental report and make findings, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code [WIC] §§ 319(b)(f), 364(b), 366.21(c))
- Requires the court hearing the dependency petition referenced in 1) above to order the release of the child from custody unless a showing has been made that the child falls within the jurisdiction of the court because the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. If the court orders the child detained, it shall state the facts on which the decision is based and state why the initial removal was necessary. (WIC §§ 300, 319 (c)(g))
- Requires any court order placing a child in foster care, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Specifies, however, that no visitation shall jeopardize the safety of the child. (WIC § 362.1 (a)(A)(B))
- Provides that at every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of parent or guardian, the court shall terminate the jurisdiction unless the social worker establishes by a preponderance of evidence that continuing jurisdiction and supervision is necessary. (WIC § 364)
- Requires the court to hold a permanency review hearing within 18 months, or, if continued, within 24 months, after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of the parent or guardian. After considering the relevant evidence, the court shall order the child returned to the physical custody of the parent or guardian, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of the child would create a substantial risk to safety or physical or emotional well-being of the child. Requires the court to review the social worker’s report, as specified. (WIC §§ 366.22-366.25)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
Background: Child Welfare Services. California’s child welfare services system was established with the goal of protecting youth from abuse and neglect and is designed to provide safety, health, and overall well-being of children. When a child is identified as being at risk of abuse or neglect, reports can be made to either law enforcement or a county child welfare agency. Often, these reports are submitted by mandated reporters who are legally required to report suspicion of child abuse or neglect due to their profession, such as a teacher or healthcare provider. When a mandated reporter submits a report to either law enforcement or the county child welfare agency, a social worker determines whether the allegation is of suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and creates a case plan which includes the provision of relevant services. The child's social worker and the court collaborate to evaluate and review the circumstances of each case, seeking either reunification or placement outside of the home as a way for the child to achieve permanency.
The court will then determine whether the allegations are true and if the child can remain at home. If the court orders a child to be placed outside of the home, the parent usually receives court-ordered family reunification services. Upon completion of the services, in addition to making any changes or improvements described in the case plan, the court may dismiss the child’s court case and the county welfare department case will also be closed. If a parent does not participate in the services set forth in the reunification plan, the court can terminate the services, and therefore change the reunification goal to one of finding a permanent home with a caring adult.
California's child welfare services programs are administered by the 58 individual counties with each county organizing and operating its own program of child protection based on local needs while adhering to state and federal regulations. When a child welfare case is open, counties are the primary governmental entity interacting with children and families when addressing issues of child abuse and neglect and are responsible, either directly or through providers, for obtaining or providing the interventions and relevant services to protect children and assist families with issues related to child abuse and neglect.
The California Department of Social Services secures federal funding to support child welfare services programs, provides statewide best practices training for social workers, and conducts program regulatory oversight and administration, and is responsible for the development of policy while also providing direct services such as adoption placements.
As of January 1, 2024, there are 43,633 youth between birth and 20 years of age in foster care in California.
Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child’s welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents’ custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. The permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.
Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker’s petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.
At the dispositional hearing, the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance use disorder counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.
Except for limited circumstances, if the child is not returned to the parent’s custody at the 18-month permanency reviewing hearing, the juvenile court is required to terminate reunification services and set a hearing to terminate parental rights. The court then determines whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, but the court’s authority to set the hearing to terminate parental rights is not conditioned on whether reasonable services were provided.
Supervised Visitation: Supervised visitation is when a parent spends time with their child with a neutral third person – either a professional with special training or a friend or family member - watching and listening during the visit. Among the reasons supervised visitation is ordered are concerns due to safety issues related to domestic violence, child abuse, or child abduction. Sometimes the reasons are due to substance use disorder issues, mental health, or a parent that a child does not have a relationship with.
This bill requires the court at a dependency review hearing, to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child, unless one or all of the following occurs:
- Unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child.
- The child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation.
- There is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child.
Alternatively, if the court does make an order for supervised visitation, they must specify the factual basis for that order and assess the persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation.
While these changes should not impact the decisions being made regarding what type of visitation is being ordered, it does shift the presumption from supervised to unsupervised visitation and require the court to demonstrate why supervised visits are being ordered.
Family Time and Federal Guidance. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) under the United States Department of Health and Human Services released an information memorandum (IM) on February 5, 2020, to provide information on best practices for providing children and youth in out-of-home care safe while improving parent and child well-being outcomes. The IM describes viewing child and family contacts during foster care less as “visits” and more as “family time” which can occur when the parent and family participate in normal parenting activities such as sharing meals, school events, or medical appointments. Family time can occur in the homes of resource families or in the family’s home. The IM emphasized “the importance of family time and visitation in reducing the trauma of removal and placement of children in out-of-home care, maintaining the integrity of the parent-child relationship, healthy sibling relationships and overall child and family well-being.” The IM also provided a recommendation for judges to, “Order unsupervised family time unless specifically contraindicated by safety threats to the child or based on the specific needs/circumstances of the child.”
Other States: Several states have codified best practices for family time, as identified by ACF. Georgia statute specifies that “there shall be a presumption that visitation shall be unsupervised unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is not in a child's best interests.
The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families Ongoing Services Standards identifies family interaction while a child is in out-of-home care as critical for “minimizing placement-induced trauma caused by separation” and recognizes that such contact is critical to enhancing attachment.
HB 1194 (Ortiz-Self, et al.), Chapter 208, Laws of 2021, went into effect on July 25, 2021, in Washington State and made significant changes to the court’s role in ordering visitation. Key among these changes is the presumption that the requirement for supervision or monitoring of visits is no longer necessary. HB 1194 stated that parent-child visits must occur in the least restrictive setting and be unsupervised. The following language was added to the permanency plan of care statute: visitation “must occur in the least restrictive setting and be unsupervised unless the presence of threats or danger to the child requires the constant presence of an adult to ensure the safety of the child.”
Illinois statute places visitation in the context of reasonable efforts and permanency planning articulating that, “the frequency, duration, and locations of visitation shall be measured by the needs of the child and family and not by the convenience of the department.”
Author’s Statement: “Current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary. Finding trained monitors is a long and expensive process, which often results in delayed visitations. Many visits are also scheduled in restrictive settings that are not conducive to quality family time. Research shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification.
“[This bill] remedies these problems by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification."
Equity Implications: Data indicate that the majority of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below the federal poverty line, are overrepresented by certain racial and ethnic groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these families are already facing enormous barriers to reunify with their children. Research shows that children participating in more frequent and/or regular time with parents exhibit more of the positive outcomes when compared to peers who participate in fewer or less regular visit. The provisions of this bill seek to ensure that children can maintain a relationship with their parents even when they may not be an option as a caregiver.
Policy Considerations: While the intent of this bill aligns largely with federal guidance, it is also proposing a significant policy shift with the creation of a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation. As with any significant policy change impacting foster youth, it is important to balance the desire for reunification with the safety and well-being of the youth. Because these youth have already been removed from their home as a result of either neglect, abuse, or both, their safety and well-being is required to be at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf.
Should this bill move forward, the Author may wish to consider aligning this bill’s provisions more closely to the federal guidance so that the safety of the youth is centered and changes to current practice align as closely to the federal recommendations as possible.
Currently, this bill prohibits a court determination that the parent is noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent from being the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare. The term noncustodial is only applied to matters concerning physical custody and as such, does not preclude an established parent/child relationship. Therefore, it can be appropriate to order unsupervised visitation for noncustodial parents. However, if a parent does not have a relationship with the child and is, for all intents and purposes a stranger, then a court should have the ability to use that information as the sole basis for ordering supervised visitation until a relationship is established.
Should this bill move forward, the author may mish to strike the provision that specifies a parent that does not have an established relationship with their child shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
Proposed Committee Amendments: The Committee proposes amendments to address policy considerations stated above to do the following:
- Strike requirements for there to be a substantial danger to the physical health of the child before supervised visits can be ordered, and instead require the standard for ordering supervised visits be due to an unsupervised visit posing a safety risk to the child based on their specific needs and circumstances.
- Strike provision specifying that a child who does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
Double referral: This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 9, 2024, and was approved on a 9-2 vote.
RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:
AB 937 (McKinnor), Chapter 458, Statutes of 2023, required a juvenile court to order, except in specified very limited circumstances, six additional months of reunification services to a parent or guardian when the court finds at a permanency review hearing that reasonable reunification services have not been provided to the parent or guardian.
AB 954 (Bryan), Chapter 552, Statutes of 2023, clarifies that a parent or guardian shall not be considered to be non-compliant with the court-ordered case plan when there is evidence that the parent or guardian is unable to pay for a court-ordered service, or when payment for a service would create an undue financial hardship to the parent or guardian.
SB 578 (Ashby), Chapter 618, Statutes of 2023, required a social worker to report on, and a juvenile court to consider, the potential harms that may result from removing a child from their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian’s custody; and, if the child is or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, requires the social worker to report on what efforts have been made to contact the child’s tribe.
AB 2159 (Bryan), Chapter 691, Statutes of 2022, prohibited a court from denying reunification services to parents and guardians in custody prior to conviction and sentencing.
SB 1085 (Kamlager), Chapter 832, Statutes of 2022, prohibited a child from being found to be a dependent of the juvenile court solely due to: homelessness; indigence or other conditions of financial difficulty, including, but not limited to, poverty or the inability to provide or obtain clothing, home or property repair, or childcare. SB 1085 also stated legislative intent that families not be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court nor should children be separated from their parents based on conditions of financial difficulty, including but not limited to, a lack of food, clothing, shelter, or childcare.
AB 788 (Calderon), Chapter 201, Statutes of 2021, clarified the meaning of "resisted" within current provisions that enable a juvenile dependency court to deny reunification services for a parent with a history of drug or alcohol use disorders.
AB 841 (Cunningham), Chapter 98, Statutes of 2021, prohibited a child from being found to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court solely due to the failure of the child's parent or alleged parent to pursue court orders seeking custody of the child.
SB 977 (Liu), Chapter, 219, Statutes of 2014, imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts, a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance use disorder treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. Further required courts to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent in these situations, as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Dependency Advocacy Center (Co-Sponsor)
Dependency Legal Services (Co-Sponsor)
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC. (Co-Sponsor)
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Public Defenders Association
Children's Law Center of California
Families Inspiring Reentry and Reunification 4 Everyone
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
Seneca Family of Agencies
The Law Offices of Dale Wilson
Opposition
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ash Kalra, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2752
Author:(Calderon) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT: Juvenile court: visitation
KEY ISSUE: should a court order unsupervised visitatIon between a dependent child and their parent or guardian, unless unsupervised visitation would create a substantial danger to the child’s physical or mental health?
SYNOPSIS
California’s juvenile dependency law allows a court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. When these conditions occur, the child is typically placed with other family members or in the foster care system, until such time as the child can be safely returned to the parent or guardian, placed in a permanent foster home, or adopted. While existing law recognizes the need to protect a child from a dangerous or potentially harmful situation, the law simultaneously favors promoting contact (and eventual reunification) between dependent children and their families so long as it will not endanger the child. To promote contact and eventual reunification, the court is authorized to permit visitation between the dependent child and parents or the legal guardian; however, the law prohibits any visitation that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill would modify existing law by requiring a court at review hearings to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or guardian and a dependent child, unless it finds that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial danger. In short, existing law provides for visitation, without any presumption in favor of supervised or unsupervised visitation, but provides for “no visitation” if it would jeopardize the child. This bill, on the other hand, creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, unless that presumption is overcome by a showing that supervised visitation is necessary to protect the child’s safety and welfare. If the court orders supervised visitation, the bill would require the court to make findings explaining why supervision was necessary. The bill also requires social workers to specify in their reports to the court, if supervised visitation were recommended, why unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare and what efforts have been made to liberalize visitation between the child and their parent or guardian.
This bill is supported by several organizations that serve and advocate on behalf of foster youth and their families. The bill, as currently in print, is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California. The author will take several amendments in this Committee that will address many of the opposition’s concerns; however, it is not clear at the time of this writing if the amendments will remove CWDA’s opposition. If the passes out of this Committee, it will next be referred to the Assembly Human Services Committee. The amendments are reflected in the bill SUMMARY and detailed in the analysis.
SUMMARY: Requires a court to order unsupervised visitation between a dependent child and parents or a legal guardian, unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would create a substantial danger to the physical or emotional health of the child. Specifically, this bill:
- Recasts an existing provision in the Welfare & Institutions Code that prohibits the court from issuing a visitation order that jeopardizes the safety of a child.
- Requires a court, at a dependency review hearing, to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child.
- Provides that if the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order and shall order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- Specifies that a determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
- Requires orders for visitation to provide a level of frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Requires that visits between a dependent children and their parents or guardians shall take place in least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Requires a social worker, when filing a supplemental report with the court prior to a hearing, to specify, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts have been put in place to liberalize the parent’s or guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. Requires a court to review and consider the social worker’s report.
- Provides that, if the juvenile court does not return the child to the parent or guardian at the final permanency review hearing, the juvenile court’s findings shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between the parent or guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Specifies that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires a social worker who files a dependency petition with the court to file a supplemental report prior to the initial petition hearing, and prior to subsequent review hearings, that sets forth the reasons why the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parents or guardians and, in the case of subsequent review hearings, the reasons for returning or not returning the child to the physical custody of the parent or guardian. Requires the court to review the supplemental report and make findings, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 319 (b)(f), 364 (b), 366.21 (c). All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
- Requires the court hearing the dependency petition referenced in 1) above to order the release of the child from custody unless a showing has been made that the child falls within the jurisdiction of the court because the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. If the court orders the child detained, it shall state the facts on which the decision is based and state why the initial removal was necessary. (Sections 300, 319 (c)(g).)
- Requires any court order placing a child in foster care, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Specifies, however, that no visitation shall jeopardize the safety of the child. (Section 362.1 (a)(A)(B).)
- Provides that at every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of parent or guardian, the court shall terminate the jurisdiction unless the social worker establishes by a preponderance of evidence that continuing jurisdiction and supervision is necessary. (Section 364.)
- Requires the court to hold a permanency review hearing within 18 months, or, if continued, within 24 months, after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of the parent or guardian. After considering the relevant evidence, the court shall order the child returned to the physical custody of the parent or guardian, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the child would create a substantial risk to safety or physical or emotional well-being of the child. Requires the court to review the social worker’s report, as specified. (Sections 366.22-366.25.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: According to the author, “current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary.” This is unfortunate because, the author contends, research “shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification.” The author believes that this bill will remedy the situation “by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification.”
Recasting the presumptions in existing law. California’s juvenile dependency law allows a court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. When these conditions occur, the child is typically placed with other family members or in the foster care system, until such time as the child can safely be returned to the parent or guardian, placed in a permanent foster home, or adopted. While existing law recognizes the need to protect a child from dangerous or potentially harmful situations, the law simultaneously favors promoting contact (and eventual reunification) between dependent children and their families so long as it will not endanger the child. In order to promote contact and eventual reunification, the court is authorized to permit visitation between the dependent child and parents or legal guardian; however, the law prohibits any visitation that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill would recast existing law by requiring a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or guardian and a dependent child, unless it finds that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial danger to the child’s welfare and the child cannot be protected without supervised visitation. The bill, in short, seeks to create a “rebuttable presumption” in favor of unsupervised visitation. It would place the burden on the social worker assigned to the case, or the county child welfare agency more generally, to provide evidence that unsupervised visitations would endanger the child in a case where supervised visits were recommended. Thus, while existing law authorizes visitation when the child has been removed from the home, this bill would create a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, unless that presumption is overcome by a showing that harm will result. The bill recognizes that, in some cases, the evidence will justify supervised visitation only. If that is the case, however, the bill would require the court to state findings that explain why supervision is necessary. Moreover, if supervision is necessary, supervised visits must be the least restrictive possible. The bill would also require social workers to specify in their reports to the court why unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare and what efforts have been made to liberalize visitation between the child and their parent or guardian.
In sum, this bill, consistent with long-established policy in favor of promoting contact and eventual reunification between foster youth and their parents and guardians, creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, on the theory that the less restrictive the terms of visitation orders, the more likely that the visits will lessen the trauma of family separation and promote quality family time. Unsupervised visitation, the author and supporters believe, will better aid the goal of family reunification in appropriate cases. However, as is the case with existing law, under this bill visitation would still be appropriately limited upon a showing that unsupervised visitation would endanger the child.
Opposition concerns. The bill in its present form is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California. CWDA agrees with the established policy in favor of promoting contact and regular visitation between parents or guardians and dependent children, especially non-offending or non-custodial parents. However, CWDA opposes rebuttable presumptions in favor of permitting judges and interested parties to have the discretion to handle each situation on a case-by-case basis. CWDA also oppose provisions in the bill in print that would limit to possibility of holding supervised visitations in child welfare offices.
It should be stressed, however, that both the author and CWDA agree that the state’s preferred policy is to promote connection and eventual reunification, while at the same time recognizing that in some situations unsupervised visitations may endanger the child. The difference, therefore, concerns starting presumptions and the corresponding burden of proof. The author believes that creating a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation will appropriately shift the burden of proof to social workers and county child welfare agencies to show that unsupervised visitation would pose a danger to the child. Given the importance that the state policy devotes to parental rights and the policy preference for continuing contact and eventual family reunification, imposing the burden on local agencies may be appropriate.
As detailed below, the amendments that the author proposes to take in this Committee appear to address many of the CWDA concerns; however, it is not entirely clear if the amendments will remove CWDA opposition entirely. While the Judicial Council of California does not oppose this bill, it did suggest many technical amendments which the author agreed to take.
Proposed Author Amendments: The specific amendments detailed below make the following general changes: (1) remove the rebuttable presumption for unsupervised visitation at the initial petition hearing, and instead only require the court, at the initial hearing, to make a visitation order that that is most conducive to quality family time; (2) remove language that requires the presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation to be overcome by “clear and convincing evidence;” (3) remove a provision that would have allowed the use of agency offices only if it is necessary to protect the physical safety of the child or for the convenience of the parent or guardian; and (4) make several clarifying and technical changes suggested by the Judicial Council. The specific amendments are as follows:
- On page 11 delete lines 6-40 and on page 12 delete lines 1-3 and insert:
(m)(1) At the initial petition hearing the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or legal guardian. This order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and the order shall specify whether the visitation must be supervised pending the disposition hearing pursuant to Section 358.
(2) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order and shall order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
(3) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.
- On page 12, line 16, page 15, lines 12-13, page 20, lines 37-38, page 23, lines 9-10, page 37, lines 32-33, page 43, lines 23-24: delete “by clear and convincing evidence”
- On page 12, line 33, page 15, line 29, page 21, line 9, page 23, line 21, page 38, line 4, page 43, line 35: delete “at the initial hearing”
- On page 12, line 37, page 15, line 33, page 21, line 13, page 23, line 25, page 38, line 8, page 43, line 39: delete “When” and insert “If”
- On page 12, lines 37-38, page 15, line 34, page 21, line 14, page 23, line 26, page 38, line 9, page 43, line 40: delete “make a record of its findings” and insert: specify the factual basis of its findings
- On page 13, line 3, page 15, line 39, page 21, line 19, page 23, line 31, page 38, line 19, page 44, line 5, after “available” insert: The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.
- On page 13, line 5 delete “Visits may take place in an” and delete lines 6-9.
- On page 16, line 2 delete “Visits may take place in an” and delete lines 3-6.
- On page 21, line 21 delete “Visits may take place in” and delete lines 22-25.
- On page 23, line 33 delete “Visits may take place in an” and delete lines 34-37.
- On page 38, line 16 delete “Visits may take place in an” and delete lines 17-20
- On page 44, line 7 delete “Visits may take place in an” and delete linens 8-11.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) supports this bill because it will “create a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in the foster system are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In doing so, this bill would promote quality family time early in a case to reduce the trauma of a child’s removal from their parents.” NCYL notes that this bill is consistent with recent trends in federal law, noting that in 2021 “Congress unanimously passed HB 1194, allowing the presumption that family time visits should be unsupervised unless there is a determination that the child is in danger.” NCYL contends that existing law in California does not specify factors to consider when determining whether supervised visits are necessary to protect the health and safety of the child. “As a result,” NCYL concludes, “most child welfare agencies typically insist that the parent’s contact with the child is supervised by default.” This bill will effectively reverse that default position by creating a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California writes that it “appreciates the author’s intent to ensure parents in the child welfare system, especially non-offending, non-custodial parents, have appropriate visitation schedules.” However, CWDA believes that “those decisions are best made on an individual basis between all court parties, including the judge.” CWDA also opposes the provision prohibiting supervised visitations in child welfare offices unless the physical safety of the child is at risk, claiming that “child welfare agencies strive to have welcoming visitation rooms to foster connections for parents and children on site while allowing for supervised visitation and observation.” CWDA concludes, however, by expressing its desire to engage “with the author on these important issues to improve our child welfare system and ensure that families have the best chance to reunify.”
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Public Defenders Association
Dependency Legal Services
Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
The Law Offices of Dale Wilson
Opposition
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2024
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Ash Kalra, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2752
Author:(Calderon) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024
SUBJECT: Juvenile court: visitation
KEY ISSUE: should existing law regarding visitation orders in juvenile dependency cases be recast, so that a court shall order unsupervised visitatIon between a dependent child and their parent or guardian, unless unsupervised visitation would create a substantial danger to the child’s physical or mental health?
SYNOPSIS
California’s juvenile dependency law allows a court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. When these conditions occur, the child is typically placed with other family members or in the foster care system, until such time as the child can be safely returned to the parent or guardian, placed in a permanent foster home, or adopted. While existing law recognizes the need to protect a child from a dangerous or potentially harmful situation, the law simultaneously favors promoting contact (and eventual reunification) between dependent children and their families so long as it will not endanger the child. To promote contact and eventual reunification, the court is authorized to permit visitation between the dependent child and parents or the legal guardian; however, the law prohibits any visitation that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill would recast existing law by requiring a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or guardian and a dependent child, unless it finds that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial danger. In short, existing law provides for visitation, without any presumption in favor of supervised or unsupervised visitation, but provides for “no visitation” if it would jeopardize the child. This bill, on the other hand, creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, unless that presumption is overcome by a showing that supervised visitation is necessary to protect the child or to the child’s welfare and the child cannot be protected without supervised visitation. If the court ordered supervised visitation, the bill would require the court to make findings explaining why supervision was necessary. The bill also requires social workers to specify in their reports to the court, if supervised visitation were recommended, why unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare and what efforts have been made to liberalize visitation between the child and their parent or guardian.
This bill is supported by several organizations that serve and advocate on behalf of foster youth and their families. The bill, at least in its present form, is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California. The author has engaged in dialogue with both CWDA and the Judicial Council on proposed amendments. However, because they were unable to reach agreement in time for this hearing, the bill will not be amended in this Committee. The amendments proposed thus far are discussed below; however, amendments, if any, will be taken in the Assembly Human Services Committee, where the bill will next be referred if it moves out of this Committee.
SUMMARY: Requires a court to order unsupervised visitation between a dependent child and parents or a legal guardian, unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation would create a substantial danger to the physical or emotional health of the child. Specifically, this bill:
- Deletes existing provisions in the Welfare & Institutions Code that prohibit a court, at stages in the dependency review process, from issuing a visitation order that jeopardizes the safety of a child.
- Requires a court, at the initial dependency disposition hearing, and at subsequent review hearings, to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child.
- Specifies that a determination that the parent or guardian was noncustodial, or that a child does not have an established relationship with the parent or guardian, shall not be the sole basis for a finding that unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare.
- Requires orders for visitation to provide a level of frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time.
- Requires that visits between a dependent children and their parents or guardians shall take place in least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time. Permits visits to take place in an agency office only if necessary to protect the physical safety of the child or for the convenience of the parent or guardian participating in the visit.
- Requires a social worker, when filing a supplemental report with the court prior to a hearing, to specify, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts have been put in place to liberalize the parent’s or guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. Requires a court to review and consider the social worker’s report.
- Provides that, if the juvenile court does not return the child to the parent or guardian at the final permanency review hearing, the juvenile court’s findings shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Specifies that any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
EXISTING LAW:
- Requires a social worker who files a dependency petition with the court to file a supplemental report prior to the initial petition hearing, and prior to subsequent review hearings, that sets forth the reasons why the child has been removed from the physical custody of the parents or guardians and, in the case of subsequent review hearings, the reasons for returning or not returning the child to the physical custody of the parent or guardian. Requires the court to review the supplemental report and make findings, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 319 (b)(f), 364 (b), 366.21 (c). All subsequent statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.)
- Requires the court hearing the dependency petition referenced in 1) above to order the release of the child from custody unless a showing has been made that the child falls within the jurisdiction of the court because the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. If the court orders the child detained, it shall state the facts on which the decision is based and state why the initial removal was necessary. (Sections 300, 319 (c)(g).)
- Requires any court order placing a child in foster care, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Specifies, however, that no visitation shall jeopardize the safety of the child. (Section 362.1 (a)(A)(B).)
- Provides that at every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of parent or guardian, the court shall terminate the jurisdiction unless the social worker establishes by a preponderance of evidence that continuing jurisdiction and supervision is necessary. (Section 364.)
- Requires the court to hold a permanency review hearing within 18 months, or, if continued, within 24 months, after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of the parent or guardian. After considering the relevant evidence, the court shall order the child returned to the physical custody of the parent or guardian, unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the child would create a substantial risk to safety or physical or emotional well-being of the child. Requires the court to review the social worker’s report, as specified. (Sections 366.22-366.25.)
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS: According to the author, “current law provides general guidelines for family visits when a child enters the Child Welfare Services system. However, it fails to address when a family visit needs to be supervised, the duration of the visit, and where it should take place. As a result, most child welfare agencies automatically require supervised visits, even when the additional monitoring may be unnecessary.” This is unfortunate because, the author contends, research “shows that regular family visits in safe environments expedite permanency and increase the likelihood of reunification.” The author believes that this bill will remedy the situation “by creating a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in foster care are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In cases where the court determines that supervision is necessary, this bill requires bench officers to set the frequency and duration of visitation. Children who enter the foster system deserve every opportunity to safely bond with their families, with the ultimate goal of family reunification.”
Recasting the presumptions in existing law. California’s juvenile dependency law allows a court to adjudge a child a dependent of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious physical or mental harm, or if the child’s parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. When these conditions occur, the child is typically placed with other family members or in the foster care system, until such time as the child can safely be returned to the parent or guardian, placed in a permanent foster home, or adopted. While existing law recognizes the need to protect a child from dangerous or potentially harmful situations, the law simultaneously favors promoting contact (and eventual reunification) between dependent children and their families so long as it will not endanger the child. In order to promote contact and eventual reunification, the court is authorized to permit visitation between the dependent child and parents or legal guardian; however, the law prohibits any visitation that would jeopardize the health, safety, or welfare of the child.
This bill would recast existing law by requiring a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or guardian and a dependent child, unless it finds that unsupervised visitation would pose a substantial danger to the child’s welfare and the child cannot be protected without supervised visitation. The bill, in short, seeks to create a “rebuttable presumption” in favor of unsupervised visitation. It would place the burden on the social worker assigned to the case, or the county child welfare agency more generally, to provide evidence that unsupervised visitations would endanger the child in a case where supervised visits were recommended. Thus, while existing law authorizes visitation when the child has been removed from the home, this bill would create a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, unless that presumption is overcome by a showing that harm will result. The bill recognizes that, in some cases, the evidence will justify supervised visitation only. If that is the case, however, the bill would require the court to state findings that explain why supervision is necessary. Moreover, if supervision is necessary, supervised visits must be the least restrictive possible. The bill would also require social workers to specify in their reports to the court why unsupervised visitation would be contrary to the child’s welfare and what efforts have been made to liberalize visitation between the child and their parent or guardian.
Opposition concerns and possible amendments if the bill moves forward. The bill in its present form is opposed by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California. CWDA agrees with the established policy in favor of promoting contact and regular visitation between parents or guardians and dependent children, especially non-offending or non-custodial parents. However, CWDA opposes rebuttable presumptions in favor of permitting judges and interested parties to have the discretion to handle each situation on a case-by-case basis. CWDA also opposes prohibiting holding supervised visitations in child welfare offices. CWDA believes that county welfare agencies strive to have welcoming visitation rooms that enable connections for parents and children on site, while still allowing for supervised visitation and observation. It should be pointed out, however, that both the author and CWDA agree that the state’s preferred policy is to promote connection and eventual reunification, while at the same time recognizing that in some situations unsupervised visitations may endanger the child. The difference, therefore, concerns starting presumptions and the corresponding burden of proof. The author believes that creating a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation will appropriately shift the burden of proof to social workers and county child welfare agencies to show that unsupervised visitation would pose a danger to the child. Given the importance that the state policy devotes to parental rights and the policy preference for continuing contact and eventual family reunification, imposing the burden on local agencies may be appropriate.
However, both the author, in its communications with the Committee, and CWDA, in its letter of opposition, indicate a willingness to seek common ground. Specifically, the author has indicated a willingness to take a number of amendments to address some of the concerns raised by CWDA and the Judicial Council. (The Judicial Council, however, has not taken a position on the bill). Specifically, the author will consider amending the bill in four ways:
- First, proposed amendments would remove the presumption for unsupervised visits at the initial hearing. The amended language instead indicates that at the initial hearing, the court shall simply specify whether visitation must be supervised pending disposition and specify the factual basis for any order for supervised visits. The amendments would also clarify that detaining the child under Welfare & Institutions Code Section 319 (c) shall not be the sole basis for the court's order for supervised visits.
- Second, in all code sections (for initial hearing, disposition, and subsequent status review hearings), an additional provision would be added stating that if the court does order supervised visitation, it shall also order that the agency has the discretion to liberalize the visitation, unless it finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child's safety.
- Third, in the code sections regarding disposition and status review hearings, the heightened "clear and convincing evidence" burden of proof language would be removed. Presumably, then, the courts would be able to order supervised visitation if there is a preponderance of evidence that the unsupervised visitation would endanger the child.
- Fourth, the author has expressed a willingness to revise the provision in the bill that prohibits the use of agency offices for visitations. As noted above, CWDA contends that its agencies offer welcoming and family-friendly facilities as visitation sites, and they therefore serve an important and useful purpose.
Unfortunately, the author and CWDA were not able to agree on precise language for these proposed amendments in time for this hearing. However, if the bill passes out of this Committee, it will next be heard in the Assembly Human Services Committee. Amendments, if any, will be taken in that Committee.
In sum, this bill, consistent with long-established policy in favor of promoting contact and eventual reunification between foster youth and their parents and guardians, creates a rebuttable presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation, on the theory that the less restrictive the terms of visitation orders, the more likely that the visits will lessen the trauma of family separation and promote quality family time. Unsupervised visitation, the author and supporters believe, will better aid the goal of family reunification in appropriate cases. However, as is the case with existing law, under this bill visitation would still be appropriately limited upon a showing that unsupervised visitation would endanger the child.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The National Center for Youth Law (NCYL) supports this bill because it will “create a rebuttable presumption that visits between a parent and their child in the foster system are unsupervised, unless there is a determination that the child's safety is in danger. In doing so, this bill would promote quality family time early in a case to reduce the trauma of a child’s removal from their parents.” NCYL notes that this bill is consistent with recent trends in federal law, noting that in 2021 “Congress unanimously passed HB 1194, allowing the presumption that family time visits should be unsupervised unless there is a determination that the child is in danger.” NCYL contends that existing law in California does not specify factors to consider when determining whether supervised visits are necessary to protect the health and safety of the child. “As a result,” NCYL concludes, “most child welfare agencies typically insist that the parent’s contact with the child is supervised by default.” This bill will effectively reverse that default position by creating a presumption in favor of unsupervised visitation.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) of California writes that it “appreciates the author’s intent to ensure parents in the child welfare system, especially non-offending, non-custodial parents, have appropriate visitation schedules.” However, CWDA believes that “those decisions are best made on an individual basis between all court parties, including the judge.” CWDA also opposes the provision prohibiting supervised visitations in child welfare offices unless the physical safety of the child is at risk, claiming that “child welfare agencies strive to have welcoming visitation rooms to foster connections for parents and children on site while allowing for supervised visitation and observation.” CWDA concludes, however, by expressing its desire to engage “with the author on these important issues to improve our child welfare system and ensure that families have the best chance to reunify.”
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Bar Association of San Francisco
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Public Defenders Association
Dependency Legal Services
Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.
National Center for Youth Law
Public Counsel
The Law Offices of Dale Wilson
Opposition
County Welfare Directors Association of California
Analysis Prepared by: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
Discussed in Hearing
39SEC
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
11MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Human Services
8MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
1MIN
Assembly Floor
10MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):