(1)Existing law provides that a child may be adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court because of abuse or neglect and generally provides for the placement of dependent children in various foster care placement settings. Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

This bill would additionally require the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child and the names of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. The bill would also require the supplemental report for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian to additionally include the efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, and findings that the social worker has made to locate any relative, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the name of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the court to place a foster child in the home of a relative, if possible, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. Existing law requires the court to take into consideration other specified factors in making a determination of the placement of a foster child.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to correct an erroneous cross reference in that provision.

(3)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.

(1)Existing law provides that a child may be adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court because of abuse or neglect and generally provides for the placement of dependent children in various foster care placement settings. Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

This bill would additionally require the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child and the names of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. The bill would also require the supplemental report for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian to additionally include the efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, and findings that the social worker has made to locate any relative, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the name of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the court to place a foster child in the home of a relative, if possible, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. Existing law requires the court to take into consideration other specified factors in making a determination of the placement of a foster child.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to correct an erroneous cross reference in that provision.

(3)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.

(1)Existing law provides that a child may be adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court because of abuse or neglect and generally provides for the placement of dependent children in various foster care placement settings. Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

This bill would additionally require the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child and the names of those relatives or kin. relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. The bill would also require the supplemental report for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, or an Indian custodian to additionally include the efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, and findings that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin relative, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin. relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires the court to place a foster child in the home of a relative, if possible, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. Existing law requires the court to take into consideration other specified factors in making a determination of the placement of a foster child.

This bill would make a nonsubstantive change to correct an erroneous cross reference in that provision.

(3)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.

(1)Existing law provides that a child may be adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court because of abuse or neglect, neglect and generally provides for the placement of dependent children in various foster care placement settings. Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

This bill would additionally require the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child and the names of those relatives or kin. The bill would also require the supplemental report for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to additionally include the efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, and findings that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)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 provides that a child may be adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court because of abuse or neglect, and generally provides for the placement of dependent children in various foster care placement settings. Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

This bill would additionally require the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child and the names of those relatives or kin. The bill would also require the supplemental report for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to additionally include the efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, and findings that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin. By imposing additional duties on county officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2929

Author:(Juan Carrillo)

As Amended Ver:June 27, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires courts and social workers to consider, in status review hearings and supplemental reports, respectively, whether appropriate efforts have been made to locate family members who could support or accept placement of a foster child or non-minor dependent.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or non-minor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, made active efforts – to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child.
2. Requires the social worker's supplemental report for a child or non-minor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to include the efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts – that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or non-minor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin.
3. Specifies that the requirements of the bill also apply, as specified, to nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members.

Senate Amendments

Specify that the requirements of the bill also apply, as specified, to nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members.

COMMENTS

"Family finding" efforts and California's juvenile dependency and foster care system. Existing law authorizes a court to declare a child a "dependent" of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious harm due to the abuse or neglect of a parent or guardian. This process often begins after a police officer or social worker, having found an at-risk child, files a dependency petition with the court. Subject to the court's findings, the child either returns to the home (often with supervision), or remains in custody as the court holds a series of periodic dispositional hearings. Once a child is a dependent and placed into foster care, existing law requires the court to conduct a status review hearing at least every six months to consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of parents or guardians, or remain in foster care.

While the primary objective of the child welfare system is to protect children from neglect and abuse, the law also favors continuing contact with family members, including extended family members. The reasons for this preference is well-founded. Studies cited by the author and sponsor demonstrate that children who are placed with relatives instead of in foster homes. do much better. They benefit from familial stability and continuity, preserve important connections to cultural identity and community, and experience fewer changes in schools. In order to maintain the family connections that provide children with these benefits, at each stage of the dependency process, the law creates a presumption in favor of placing children with "fit and willing relatives," unless the court finds that doing so would pose a substantial risk to the welfare of the child. Further reflecting this policy preference, two years ago AB 207 (Chapter 573, Statutes of 2022) created the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Programs. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 16546-16549.) The Center and its programs provide training and technical assistance for county child welfare and probation departments to further the goal of placing foster youth with relatives whenever possible or, in the case of Native American children, with the child's tribe or in a tribally-approved placement. Several other provisions of the Welfare & Institutions Code require the courts to consider, and social workers and probation officers to document, their family-finding efforts.

This bill, in light of these policy preferences, requires the court, at each six-month status review hearing, to consider whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, active efforts – to locate any relatives who could provide family support or possible placement of the child. Arguably, existing law already requires the court to reconsider such factors, given that the purpose of the status review hearing is to assess placement plans and the preferred placement is with the child's relatives if possible. The bill would also require a social worker to include information about their family finding efforts in the supplemental report they are required to prepare for the status review hearing. This too is arguably at least implicit in existing law. That is, existing law already requires social workers to document their efforts in this regard and already requires them to submit a supplemental report for purposes of the six-month status review hearing. This bill would simply require the supplemental report to include information and documentation on those required efforts in the supplemental report, so that the court may consider it as part of the status review.

How this bill differs from AB 448, which was vetoed (and possibly misread), by the Governor. Last year, the author's AB 448 provided broader requirements than this bill. In addition to requiring social workers and probation officers to include information about their family finding efforts, last year's bill also required the social worker to "conduct an investigation" to locate relatives who were willing and able to offer support and a placement for the child. This provision was somewhat confusing, for existing law already required social workers to conduct such an investigation within 30 days of the child's removal; AB 448 required the social worker to "immediately conduct [the investigation], but no later than 30 days after the child has been removed." While AB 448 added the word "immediately," under both existing law and AB 448, the social worker was required to conduct the investigation within 30 days of removal. Adding to the confusion about what AB 448 required, the veto message implied that AB 448 would have required the social workers to conduct a new investigation, when in fact that investigation was already required in existing law. The veto message, while agreeing with the policy aims, feared that the bill, and especially the supposedly "new" investigation, would impose too great a fiscal cost on the counties. In fact, the AB 448 would only have required social workers to include information about those already-required investigations in their supplemental reports. In addition, AB 448 would have required reporting on family-finding efforts at the earlier stages of the process, including at the initial petition hearing. AB 2929 is substantially different and much narrower than AB 448. First, it avoids the confusing and unnecessary language about conducting investigations and instead simply requires social workers to include information on these already-required efforts in their supplemental reports. Second, AB 2929, unlike AB 448, only applies to the six-month status review hearing.

In sum, this bill is a modest and sensible measure that will help the state better meet its long-standing policy of placing foster youth with relatives who are willing and able to take them in, instead of placing them with non-relatives in a foster care setting. The bill does not impose any new investigative or documentation requirements on social workers or on the courts. Rather, it requires social workers to provide information on efforts that they are already required to undertake and already required to document. It requires the court to consider that information when holding the required six-month status review hearing.

According to the Author

According to the author, in recent years, California has devoted increasing resources to expand "family finding efforts" for youth in foster care. These efforts reflect an underlying policy, supported by substantial empirical evidence, showing that foster children fare much better when they are placed with relatives than when they are placed with non-relatives in foster homes. The author contends, "AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state's commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success."

Arguments in Support

According to the bill's sponsor, the Children's Law Center of California (CLC) family finding "is a critical tool already at the disposal of social workers that can increase relative placements among youth removed from parental care. Relative placement has been shown to be in the best interest of a child for a variety of reasons, including increased stability for a child, preservation of cultural identity and connections to the community, and fewer school changes." CLC notes that both "state and federal law include a preference to place children in out-of-home care with relatives," and, reinforcing this policy preference, studies have "demonstrated the significant benefit to children in the child welfare system that are placed with relatives rather than with strangers in foster homes or in group care." CLC believes that delays in engaging with relatives "often means that the relative will not be selected as placement for the child." CLC believes that "AB 2929 seeks to avoid these unnecessary delays by ensuring all parties involved in the child welfare case (attorneys, judicial officers) will have the information necessary to facilitate meaningful and ongoing connections between the youth and their family."

Several other organizations that advocate for youth, and on behalf of foster youth in particular, support AB 2929 for substantially similar reasons. The supporters believe that this measure will allow the state to better realize the policy preferences in existing law by expressly requiring courts to consider, and social workers to document in reports supplied to the court, their continuing and active efforts to find relatives willing and able to provide a safe and appropriate placement of children and non-minor dependents.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations analysis, the California Department of Social Services estimates annual local assistance costs of $1,170,000 ($860,000 General Fund and $310,000 federal funds) for county child welfare agencies for workload associated with additional required documentation of family finding efforts. Proposition 30 of 2012 provides that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned services applies to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided. The California Judicial Council anticipates costs to courts would be minor and absorbable.

VOTES:

ASM JUDICIARY: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, Sanchez, Waldron

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 6-0-1

YES: Lee, Essayli, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas, Weber

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

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

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: June 27, 2024

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0004305

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2929

Author: Juan Carrillo (D), et al.

Amended: 6/27/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 6/17/24

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Blakespear, Hurtado, Menjivar

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ochoa Bogh

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 6/25/24

AYES: Umberg, Wilk, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Niello, Roth, Stern, Wahab

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Jones, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Seyarto, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Dependents: family finding

SOURCE: Children’s Law Center of California

DIGEST:

This bill requires the court to determine at each status review hearing if the social worker has made continued efforts to locate relatives or nonrelative extended family members (NREFM) who could provide family support or possible placement. Requires each supplemental report filed to include information on efforts the social worker has made to locate relatives or NREFM who could provide family support or possible placement.

ANALYSIS:

Existing Law:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk of abuse and neglect or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) §§202)
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC §300.2)
3. Requires a county to file a petition to the court requesting a detention hearing within 48 hours of placing a child under temporary custody to determine whether a child should remain in custody and whether any specific court permissions are necessary to provide for the health and safety of the child. (WIC §§313 and 319)
4. Requires, if a child is removed, the social worker to conduct, within 30 days, an investigation in order to identify and locate all grandparents, parents of a sibling of the child, if the parent has legal custody of the sibling, adult siblings, other adult relatives of the child, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know. (WIC §309(e)(1))
5. Requires a social worker to use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parents, and requires each county welfare department to do both of the following:
   1. Create and make public a procedure by which a parent and relatives of a child who has been removed from their parents or guardians may identify themselves to the county welfare department and requires the county welfare department to provide parents and relatives with specified notices; and,
   2. Notify the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented. Requires, if a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, the county welfare department to provide a copy to CDSS of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document. (WIC §309(e)(3))
6. Defines “family finding” to mean conducting an investigation, including, but not limited to, through a computer-based search engine, to identify relatives and kin and to connect a child or youth, who may be disconnected from their parents, with those relatives and kin in an effort to provide family support and possible placement. If it is known or there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, as defined “family finding” also includes contacting the Indian child’s tribe to identify relatives and kin. (WIC§ 309(e)(3)(B))
7. Requires preferential consideration be given to a request by a relative to have the child placed with the relative if the child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parent(s). (WIC §361.3(a))
8. Requires, when placing a child in the home of a relative, an extended family member, or NREFM on a temporary basis, the court to consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment required by current law, 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 NREFM. (WIC §319(h)(3))
9. Requires CDSS to provide technical assistance to encourage and facilitate the county placement agency’s evaluation of placement needs and the development of needed placement resources and programs. (WIC §16001.1)

This bill:

1. Provides that at every status review hearing, the court shall determine, for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, NREFM, or an Indian custodian, whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, active efforts, to locate any relatives or NREFM who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives or NREFM and the results of those efforts.
2. Provides each supplemental report filed for each status review hearing shall include, for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, NREFM, or an Indian custodian, the continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or NREFM who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives or NREFM. The social worker shall document the efforts and the results of those efforts.

Background

According to the author, “In California, there are nearly 45,000 children in foster care, with over 55% of them Latino. Children in foster care have experienced abuse, neglect, and other adverse childhood experiences that can negatively impact their health. Research shows that children in the foster care system who are placed with relatives have greater placement and school stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems in placement, and more connections to their biological family and social-cultural communities. AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success.”

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.

Current Requirements for Attempting to Locate Family for Placement Under current law, when a child is removed from their home, the social worker must within 30 days conduct an investigation to identify and locate the child’s grandparents and other adult relatives. At subsequent hearings if the court is terminating reunification services or at post-permanency hearings, the court must find that the agency has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted has been evaluated as a potential placement. The law does not require that such information is included in court reports which would allow all parties in the case to know what efforts had been made and which, if any, relatives had been contacted.

Kinship Care and Family Placement Kinship care refers to care of a child by relatives. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, a government organization providing information and tools for improving child welfare practice, kinship care is the preferred option in most U.S. child welfare systems because it is the least restrictive, most family like placement for children. They further note, children in kinship care environments have fewer disruptions and overall better permanency outcomes than children in non-familial placements.

The Juvenile Law Center writes, “Kinship care must be sought more frequently and be a top priority for Black and Native families and other communities in the child welfare system that have been historically disenfranchised, ripped apart, and devalued throughout American history. The child welfare system must prioritize the kinship care model to ensure the care of children, promote equity among families, sustain family/familial relationships, and to protect, and preserve the culture and history of these communities.”

This bill attempts to advance these goals by requiring at each status review hearing for the court to determine if the social worker has continued efforts to locate relatives or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement. The bill further attempts to advance the goal of placing children with kin by requiring each supplemental report filed for review hearings to include information on efforts the social worker has made to locate relative or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 448 (Juan Carrillo, 2023) required the social worker to conduct immediately, but no later than 30 days after the child has been removed, an investigation in order to identify and locate all relatives of the child, and to document their efforts to the court, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts and results of those efforts to locate relatives or kin. The bill was vetoed.

SB 384 (Cortese, Chapter 811, Statutes of 2022) required each county welfare and probation department to notify CDSS whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, as described, and how the practice has been implemented. Required a county who has not adopted one of the suggested practices to provide a copy of its existing family finding policies and practices to CDSS. Includes “family finding” activities within the due diligence required of a social worker and probation officer when investigating the names and locations of relatives.

SB 1091 (Hurtado, 2022) would have required that funds, appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose, be available to fund new or expanded family finding and engagement techniques and would have required CDSS to fund contracts with community-based organizations or to provide local assistance allocations to counties or Indian tribes, or both. SB 1091 would have further required CDSS to convene a leadership team to develop recommendations relating to family finding and engagement as provided. The bill was set to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee but the hearing was cancelled by the author.

AB 2579 (Bennet, 2022) would have required county placing agencies to implement model practices for intensive family finding and support for foster children, children detained but not adjudicated, and candidates for foster care. The bill would have further required counties to submit a plan to CDSS as a condition of receiving funding for these purposes. The bill was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the California Department of Social Services estimates annual local assistance costs of $1,170,000 ($860,000 General Fund and $310,000 federal funds) for county child welfare agencies for workload associated with additional required documentation of family finding efforts. Proposition 30 of 2012 provides that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned services applies to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided. The California Judicial Council anticipates costs to courts would be minor and absorbable.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/15/24)

Children’s Law Center of California (source)

A New Way of Life Reentry Project
California Alliance of Caregivers
Judicial Council of California
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/15/24)

None Received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Luz Rivas, Weber

Prepared by: Heather Hopkins / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

8/18/24 17:50:21

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2929 (Juan Carrillo) - Dependents: family finding

Bill Summary:

AB 2929 would require the court, as part of the status review for a child or nonminor dependent, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts to locate any relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Social Services estimates annual local assistance costs of $1,170,000 ($860,000 General Fund and $310,000 federal funds) for county child welfare agencies for workload associated with additional required documentation of family finding efforts. Proposition 30 of 2012 provides that any legislation enacted after September 30, 2012 that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned services applies to local agencies only to the extent that the State provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
• The California Judicial Council anticipates costs to courts would be minor and absorbable.

Background:

Under the child welfare services (CWS) system, social workers in each county receive reports of abuse or neglect, and investigate and resolve those reports. 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. Current law requires, if a child is removed from their home, the social worker to conduct within 30 days an investigation in order to identify and locate all relatives, as specified. The 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.

Existing law requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months and requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report as part of that review.

Proposed Law:

Specific provisions of the bill would:

• Require the court, as part of the status review, for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, as defined, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, as defined, to locate any relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members and the results of those efforts.
• Require, as part of the required supplemental report to be filed with a status review, for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, nonrelative extended family members, or in the case of an Indian child, their extended family members, as defined, or an Indian custodian, the continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, as defined, that the social worker has made to locate any relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives, extended family members, or nonrelative extended family members.

Related Legislation:

AB 448 (J. Carrillo, 2023) included provisions similar to those in this bill. The bill was vetoed by the Governor.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2023-2024 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 2929 (Author:Juan Carrillo)

Version: June 19, 2024

Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Dependents: family finding

DIGEST

This bill requires a social worker’s supplemental report filed in connection with a status review hearing to include, for a nonminor dependent who does not reside with relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, the social worker’s continued efforts to locate relatives or kin who could provide family support or a placement; and requires the juvenile court to determine, at the status review hearing, whether the social worker has continued to make those efforts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research shows that a child taken from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian will suffer fewer negative outcomes if they are placed with a trusted relative or other person with whom they have a family-like relationship rather than a stranger. To this end, when a child is taken to custody and declared a dependent of the juvenile court, State policy requires the social worker to take specific efforts to locate a relative, as defined, who may serve as a caregiver for the child. Last year, the Legislature passed AB 448 (Juan Carrillo, 2023), which would have required social workers and probation officers of dependent children to undertake specified family finding efforts, and for juvenile courts to make specified findings relating to the adequacy of those efforts. Governor Newsom vetoed AB 448, citing cost concerns.

This bill imposes a more modest requirement relating to a social worker’s efforts to locate a relative placement and the court’s review of those efforts at a status review hearing. Specifically, this bill requires a social worker, in their supplemental report regarding a child or nonminor dependent who is already not living with a relative, as defined, to address their ongoing efforts to locate suitable family members (or, in the case of an Indian child, ongoing active efforts); and for the court, at the status review hearing, to determine whether the social worker has continued those efforts or active efforts. These requirements are intended to ensure that a juvenile court is provided with the necessary information to determine whether a social worker is conducting an adequately diligent effort to locate a beneficial relative placement for the child. The author has agreed to amend the bill to replace references to a child’s “kin” with terms that are defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code.

This bill is sponsored by the Children’s Law Center of California and is supported by A New Way of Life Reentry Project, the Alliance for Children’s Rights, the California Alliance of Caregivers, California CASA, the California Tribal Families Coalition, the County Welfare Directors Association , Dependency Advocacy Center, Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone, John Burton Advocates for Youth, the Judicial Council of California, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. , Public Counsel, Stanislaus Family Counselors, Starting Over, Inc., and the .Youth Law Center. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. The Senate Human Services Committee passed this bill with a vote of 4-0.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which requires states to establish specific adoption preferences for a child who is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, or who is eligible to be a member and is the child of a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, and to make specified efforts to notify the child’s tribe when an Indian child is placed in foster care. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.)
2. Establishes specific state statutes to implement ICWA’s protections for Indian children in the juvenile court system, which include:
   1. Defining “active efforts” as affirmative, active, thorough and timely efforts intended primarily to maintain or reunite an Indian child with their family; to the maximum extent possible, active efforts shall be provided in a manner consistent with the prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life of the Indian child's tribe and shall be conducted in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child's parents, extended family members, Indian custodians, and tribe.
   2. Imposing an affirmative duty on the court, county welfare department, and probation department to inquire whether a child, for whom a petition to make the child a dependent or ward of the juvenile court has been, or may be, filed, is or may be an Indian child.
   3. Providing notice to an Indian child’s parents and tribe that the child is involved in proceedings that may culminate in an order for foster care placement, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement, as specified, and prohibiting any such proceeding until 10 days after the notice was received.
   4. Granting the child’s Indian tribe and Indian custodian the right to intervene at any point in an Indian child custody proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 224-224.6, 361.7.)
3. Establishes the juvenile court, which is intended to provide for the protection and safety of the public and minors falling under its jurisdiction. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 202, 245.)
4. Provides that a child may become a dependent of the juvenile court and be removed from the custody of their parent or guardian^[1] on the basis of enumerated forms of abuse or neglect. (Welf. Inst. Code, § 300(a)-(j).)
5. Provides that, if a child is taken into temporary custody, the social worker must conduct, within 30 days, an investigation to identify and locate all grandparents, parents of a sibling of the child, if the parent has legal custody of the sibling, adult siblings, other adult relatives of the child, as defined, and, if there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, any extended family members.
   1. The social worker must provide any person so located of specified information, including information regarding the child’s removal, how to become a resource family, and contact information for the child.
   2. The social worker must use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of relatives, as specified, including “family finding,” which means conducting an investigation that includes specified steps. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 309(e).)
6. Requires, at the initial petition hearing on a petition to make a child a dependent of the juvenile court, the social worker to report to the court on topics including whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child.
   1. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the social worker must include additional specified information relating to the county welfare department’s active efforts to provide services and programs to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
   2. If the child is not released from custody, the court may order temporary placement of the child in the home of a relative, extended family member, as defined, or nonrelative extended family member who has been assessed; if the child is an Indian child, they shall be placed in accordance with the placement preferences set forth in ICWA unless the court finds good cause not to follow those preferences.
   3. Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for the temporary placement. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 319.)
7. Requires a court, at the dispositional hearing, to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition of the child; as part of this determination, the court must receive in evidence a social study or evaluation made by the child’s social worker or court-appointed child advocate that sets forth specified information, including whether the child can be returned to their parent’s custody, the relationships between the child and any identified family members, information relating to the child’s siblings, and, for an Indian child, whether tribal customary adoption may be appropriate.
   1. If the child has been removed from their parent’s custody, the court must make a finding as to whether the social worker has exercised due diligence in conducting the investigation under 5) to identify, locate, and notify the child’s relatives, including maternal and paternal relatives. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 358, 358.1.)
8. Requires, at a hearing under 8), preferential consideration to be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless of the relative’s immigration status, or physical disability provided that the relative can exercise care and control over the child.
   1. The social worker shall consider enumerated factors to determine whether placement with a relative is appropriate.
   2. If the court does not place the child with a relative who has been considered, the court shall state for the record the reasons the placement was denied.
   3. At each subsequent hearing, whenever a new placement of the child must be made, the court must give new consideration to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who will fulfill the child’s reunification or permanent plan requirements. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.3.)
9. Requires the juvenile court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care periodically, and no less frequently than every six months, at which point the court shall consider the child’s placement and other enumerated factors. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.)
10. Requires every supplemental report filed for a review hearing under 10) to include a factual discussion of specified subjects, including the recommended plan for the child and information about the child’s health and education. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.1.)
11. States that, when a placement in foster care is being made, placement shall, if possible, be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child.
    1. An agency or other entity tasked with placing a child must make diligent efforts to locate a relative, as defined, to locate an appropriate hearing.^[2]
    2. At the permanency hearing in which the court terminates reunification services, or at any postpermanency hearing for a child not placed for adoption, the court shall find that the agency or entity has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted as possible caretaker has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource. (Fam. Code, § 7950.)

This bill:

1. Requires a juvenile court, at a status review hearing for a dependent child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to find whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives of those or kin, and the results of those efforts.
2. Requires each supplemental report required to be filed at a status review hearing for a dependent child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to include a factual discussion of the social worker’s continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives of those or kin; the discussion must include documentation of the efforts and the results of those efforts.
3. Corrects a cross-reference in Family Code section 7950.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

In California, there are nearly 45,000 children in foster care, with over 55% of them Latino. Children in foster care have experienced abuse, neglect, and other adverse childhood experiences that can negatively impact their health. Research shows that children in the foster care system who are placed with relatives have greater placement and school stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems in placement, and more connections to their biological family and social-cultural communities.

AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success.

2. California’s foster population and the importance of family and tribal placements

The child welfare system is intended to achieve a delicate balance of values, including “protecting children from harm, preserving family ties, and avoiding unnecessary intrusion into family life.”^[3] The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children.^[4] As of January 2024, over 43,000 children and young adults were in foster care in California.^[5] Black and Indigenous children are dramatically overrepresented in the foster care system, with rates of 17.1 and 15.8 children in care per 1,000 children, respectively.^[6]

Despite the stated goal of protecting children, research shows “that foster care leads to poor human capital formation and a host of undesirable outcomes.”^[7] The very first step of the process—removing a child from their parent’s custody—can lead to short- and long-term harms, including PTSD and substance abuse issues.^[8] Foster children in California move placements, on average, 3.67 times every 1,000 days;^[9] multiple placements are associated with attachment difficulties, decreased academic performance, and externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems.^[10] These problems carry over into adulthood: a survey conducted by the University of Chicago’s Chapin Hall found that more than 25 percent of former foster youth in California reported experiencing at least one night of homelessness in the past two years, while nearly 30 percent said they had couch surfed by staying with friends because they lacked housing.^[11]

One factor that has been shown to reduce negative experiences and outcomes for foster and former foster children is the placement of children in kinship placements, rather than in traditional foster placements with strangers.^[12] “Compared to children that were placed in traditional foster care, former foster youth that were placed in kinship care are more likely to be employed or in school, less likely to be incarcerated, less likely to be homeless, and less likely to receive social welfare benefits.”^[13]

For Indigenous children, federal and state law and state policy also require social workers and county welfare departments to make “active efforts” to locate members of the child’s family and members of the child’s tribe and grants placement preferences to members of the child’s tribe and other tribes. ^[14] This policy, implemented in the 1970s with the passage of ICWA, was “a direct response to the mass removal of Indian children from their families during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s by state officials and private parties,” which “was only the latest iteration of a much older policy of removing Indian children from their families.”^[15] These efforts “had devastating effects on children and parents alike” and “presented an existential threat to the continued vitality of tribes.”^[16] The United States Supreme Court recently upheld ICWA’s placement preferences,^[17] which allows this State to continue its policies that recognize that “[i]t is in the best interest of an Indian child that the child’s membership or citizenship in the child’s Indian tribe and connection to the tribal community be encouraged and protected.”^[18]

Current law requires a social worker to report on their efforts, or for an Indian child, active efforts, to locate family members for a potential placement at the initial hearing.^[19] Current law also requires the social worker to report on efforts made to find a relative for a potential placement at the dispositional hearing; if the court concludes that the child will remain out of the custody of their parent, preferential consideration must be given to a request by a relative for placement of the child with that relative.^[20] Current law does not, however, specifically require a social worker to report to the court on family finding efforts at subsequent hearings.

3. AB 448 and the Governor’s veto

Last year, the Legislature passed AB 448 (Carrillo, 2023), which would have imposed enhanced family finding requirements on the social worker or probation officer of a child who has been removed from the custody of their parents, with specific requirements for a child who may be an Indian child pursuant to ICWA. The bill also required a juvenile court to inquire into, and make findings regarding, the adequacy of those finding efforts, and to make additional findings relating to the adequacy of the county welfare department’s efforts. This Committee passed AB 448, with minor amendments to clarify the scope of family finding efforts a social worker must conduct for a nonminor dependent, with a vote of 11-0.

Governor Newsom, however, vetoed AB 448. In his veto message, Governor Newsom cited cost concerns as the basis for his veto:

I am returning Assembly Bill 448 without my signature.

This bill would require a social worker to conduct a family-finding investigation to identify and locate adult relatives within 30 days after a child has been taken into temporary custody and would make changes to reporting and documentation requirements for social workers and probation officers.

My Administration recognizes the value of keeping children connected to their biological and extended families. Children placed with family members have greater placement stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, and more connection to their social-cultural communities. Existing law already requires that, if a child is removed from their home, the social worker or probation officer must, within 30 days, investigate to identify adult relatives of the child.

Last year's Budget Act allocated $150 million General Fund for the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Program, which supports culturally responsive, family-centered, and trauma-informed family-finding and engagement services that focus on maintaining permanent connections for foster children with their family members. The new documentation requirements in this bill would result in ongoing General Fund costs of over $6 million to support the increased administrative workload for county child welfare agencies and county probation departments. Though this policy has merit, its costs must be considered as part of the annual budget process.

In partnership with the Legislature, we enacted a budget that closed a shortfall of more than $30 billion through balanced solutions that avoided deep program cuts and protected education, health care, climate, public safety, and social service programs that are relied on by millions of Californians. This year, however, the Legislature sent me bills outside of this budget process that, if all enacted, would add nearly $19 billion of unaccounted costs in the budget, of which $11 billion would be ongoing. 
With our state facing continuing economic risk and revenue uncertainty, it is important to remain disciplined when considering bills with significant fiscal implications, such as this measure.

For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.^[21]

4. This bill requires a social worker to report on, and for a court to make findings related to, the social worker’s efforts to find a relative placement at a status review hearing

This bill is another effort to ensure that adequate efforts are made to locate a placement for a child with a relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, though it is more modest than AB 448 in response to the Governor’s veto. AB 2929 imposes two related requirements in connection with a status review hearing of a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with relatives, other family members, or an Indian custodian:

• At the status review hearing, the court must determine whether the social worker has continued efforts to locate any relatives or others who could provide family support or a possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent. If the child is an Indian child, the court must find whether the social worker has continued active efforts to locate relatives or kin, consistent with ICWA.
• In advance of the status review hearing, the social worker must include in its supplemental report the continued effort they have made to locate any relatives or others who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives or other individuals; the report must document those efforts and the results of those efforts. If the child is an Indian child, the social worker must document their active efforts, consistent with ICWA.

As currently in print, the bill refers to a child’s “kin”; the author has agreed to amend the bill to replace that term with references to nonrelative family members and, in the case of an Indian child, extended family members, to conform the bill’s terminology to the terms defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Given that a social worker’s search for relatives should be ongoing at the status review hearing, it does not appear that this bill imposes a significant new burden on social workers. It many cases, supplemental reports should already include this information, given that a court at a status review hearing is required to consider the appropriateness of the child’s placement.^[22]

5. Amendments

As noted above, the author has agreed to amend the bill to delete the term “kin” and replace it with references to nonrelative family members and, in the case of an Indian child, extended family members. Unlike “kin,” these terms are defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code and will provide clearer guidance to the social workers and courts tasked with implementing this bill.

6. Arguments in support.

According to the California Tribal Families Coalition:

Both state and federal law include a preference to place children in out-of-home care with relatives. For example, California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.3, states that preferential consideration must be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative. Numerous nationwide studies have documented the poor outcomes of children and youth who are removed from their homes and placed into the child welfare system. Children involved with the child welfare system have increased rates of chronic health problems, developmental delays and disabilities, mental health needs, and substance abuse problems.

Studies have also demonstrated the significant benefit to children in the child welfare system that are placed with relatives rather than with strangers in foster homes or in group care. A 2008 study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that children placed into kinship care had fewer behavioral problems three years after placement than children who were placed into foster care. This study also noted that a large body of research acknowledges the evidence that children in kinship care are less likely to change placements, benefiting from increased placement stability and better outcomes. Researchers also found that children placed with relatives were more likely to remain in their same neighborhood, be placed with siblings, and have consistent contact with their birth parents than other children in foster care.

Delay in relative engagement often means that the relative will not be selected as placement for the child. Fact finding hearings can sometimes take months to complete with placement decisions at times taking over a year. During this time, the child could be placed with a family and developing strong connections all while a relative may have a home ready and waiting for the child. AB 2929 seeks to avoid these unnecessary delays by ensuring all parties involved in the child welfare case (attorneys, judicial officers) will have the information necessary to facilitate meaningful and ongoing connections between the youth and their family.

SUPPORT

Children’s Law Center of California (sponsor)

A New Way of Life Reentry Project

Alliance for Children’s Rights

California Alliance of Caregivers

California CASA

California Tribal Families Coalition

County Welfare Directors Association
Dependency Advocacy Center

Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.

Public Counsel

Stanislaus Family Counselors

Starting Over, Inc.

Youth Law Center

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation:

AB 3217 (Bryan, 2024) requires each county, on an annual basis, to review publicly available data comparing the statewide national average rate of placing children with relatives in the prior year for comparison with the county’s placement rate during the same period and for counties to take specified actions based on the results. AB 3217 is pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 824 (Ashby, 2023) expands the Department of Social Services’ (DSS) authority to grant an exemption to restrictions on a person serving as a resource family for a specific child when that person has a criminal conviction, to permit DSS to grant an exception to a person who is an extended family member or a nonrelative extended family member, provided that DSS finds the exemption is justified and other specified conditions are met. SB 824 is pending before the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Prior Legislation:

AB 448 (Juan Carrillo, 2023) would have required a social worker to conduct an investigation to locate family members or members of a child’s tribe for a child who is a dependent or ward or the juvenile court immediately, but in no case in fewer than 30 days from the date of removal, and would have required a social workers to include information about their ongoing efforts to locate family members or members of the child’s tribe in its reports to the court. AB 448 was vetoed by Governor Newsom; the veto message, along with a more thorough discussion of AB 448, is set forth in Part 3 of this analysis.

SB 384 (Cortese, Ch. 811, Stats. 2022) required county welfare departments and probation departments to notify the DSS, on or before January 1, 2024, as to whether it has adopted certain suggested practices for family finding and whether the practice has been implemented, and specified what efforts constitute due diligence in family finding.

SB 354 (Skinner, Ch. 687, Stats. 2021) among other things, authorized a juvenile court to order the placement of a child with a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal 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.

AB 686 (Waldron, Ch. 434, Stats. 2019) required, when a tribe does not exercise its right to approve a home for a specific dependent Indian child, the county and foster family agency to apply prevailing social and cultural standards of the Indian community when approving a resource family for that child.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Human Services Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 71, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 15, Noes 0)

Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 0)

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

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

2. Family Code section 7590’s “diligent efforts” requirement currently cross-references the incorrect subdivision of Welfare and Institutions Code section 319. Amendments agreed to by the author in the Human Services Committee correct the cross-reference. ↑

3. In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 638. ↑

4. In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 673. ↑

5. California Child Welfare Indicators Project, University of California at Berkeley, Report: Children in Foster Care, CWS/CMS 2023 Quarter 4 Extract (retrieved Jun. 20, 2024), available at https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/PIT/MTSG/r/ab636/s. All links in this analysis are current as of June 20, 2024. ↑

6. California Child Welfare Indicators Project, University of California at Berkeley, Report: Children in Foster Care by Ethnic Group, CWS/CMS 2023 Quarter 4 Extract (retrieved Jun. 20, 2024), available at https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/InCareRates/MTSG/r/rts/s. Latino children are in care at a rate of 5.3 children per 1,000; white children are in care at a rate of 3.4 children per 1,000; children of Asian and Pacific Islander descent are in care at a rate of .7 children per 1,000. (Ibid.) The rate for multiracial children is set at 0, which may reflect a data collection issue. (Ibid.) ↑

7. Lovett & Xue, Family First of the Kindness of Strangers? Foster Care Placements and Adult Outcomes, Labour Economics (Feb. 22, 2021), p. 1. ↑

8. E.g., Trivedi, The Harm of Child Removal, 43 N.Y.U. Rev. of Law & Social Change 523, 526, 528-532. (2019). ↑

9. California Child Welfare Indicators Project, University of California at Berkeley, Report: Children in Foster Care by Placement Stability, CWS/CMS 2023 Quarter 4 Extract (retrieved Jun. 20, 2024), available at https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/P5/MTSG/r/Fed/l. ↑

10. McConnell, et al., Changes in Placement among Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Study of Child and Case Influences, Soc. Serv. Rev., 80(3) (Sept. 2006), p. 399. ↑

11. Courtney, et al., Findings from the California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH): Conditions of youth at age 23 (2020) Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, pp. 18-19, available at https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/CY_YT_RE1020.pdf. ↑

12. Id. at p. 3. ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. 25 U.S.C. § 1915; Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 224.1, 361.31. ↑

15. Haaland v. Brackeen (Jun. 15, 2023), 143 S.Ct. 1609, 1641 (conc. opn. of Gorsuch, J.) ↑

16. Ibid. ↑

17. Id. at p. 1623 (maj. opn. of Barrett, J.) ↑

18. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224. ↑

19. Id., § 319. ↑

20. Id., §§ 358, 361.3. ↑

21. Governor’s veto message to Assem. on Assem. Bill No. 448 (Oct. 8, 2023) Assem. Recess Journal No. 11 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) p. 3691. ↑

22. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366; see also id., § 366.21. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: Dependents: family finding

SUMMARY

This bill requires the court to determine at each status review hearing if the social worker has made continued efforts to locate relatives or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement. Requires each supplemental report filed to include information on efforts the social worker has made to locate relatives or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk of abuse and neglect or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (WIC 202)
   
2. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC 300.2)
   
3. States the intent of the Legislature to preserve and strengthen a child’s family ties whenever possible and to reunify a foster youth with their biological family whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement alternative, such as adoption or guardianship. (WIC 16000)
   
4. Requires a county to file a petition to the court requesting a detention hearing within 48 hours of placing a child under temporary custody to determine whether a child should remain in custody and whether any specific court permissions are necessary to provide for the health and safety of the child. (WIC 313 and 319)
   
5. Requires, if a child is removed, the social worker to conduct, within 30 days, an investigation in order to identify and locate all grandparents, parents of a sibling of the child, if the parent has legal custody of the sibling, adult siblings, other adult relatives of the child, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know. (WIC 309(e)(1))
   
6. Requires a social worker to use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parents, and requires each county welfare department to do both of the following:
   
   1. Create and make public a procedure by which a parent and relatives of a child who has been removed from their parents or guardians may identify themselves to the county welfare department and requires the county welfare department to provide parents and relatives with specified notices; and,
      
   2. Notify the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented. Requires, if a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, the county welfare department to provide a copy to CDSS of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document. (WIC 309(e)(3))
      
7. Defines “family finding” to mean conducting an investigation, including, but not limited to, through a computer-based search engine, to identify relatives and kin and to connect a child or youth, who may be disconnected from their parents, with those relatives and kin in an effort to provide family support and possible placement. If it is known or there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, as defined “family finding” also includes contacting the Indian child’s tribe to identify relatives and kin. (WIC 309(e)(3)(B))
   
8. Requires preferential consideration be given to a request by a relative to have the child placed with the relative if the child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parent(s). (WIC 361.3(a))
   
9. Requires, when placing a child in the home of a relative, an extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) on a temporary basis, the court to consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment required by current law, 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 NREFM. (WIC 319(h)(3))
   
10. Requires CDSS to provide technical assistance to encourage and facilitate the county placement agency’s evaluation of placement needs and the development of needed placement resources and programs. (WIC 16001.1)
    
11. Requires updates by counties as it relates to children placed by child welfare, the family finding activities attempted or underway, or other activities to connect the child to caring adults outside of the congregate (group home) care setting; identification of the counties that have any existing or planned contracts, or efforts to directly provide or contract for intensive child specific recruitment services; identification of counties with any existing or planned specialty mental health services targeted to address the mental health service needs of a foster child transitioning from congregate care to permanency or other family based care setting, and a summary of any gaps that remain; and the number of children that successfully achieved permanency following receipt of the services described. (WIC 16523.57)
    
12. Requires the juvenile court to make full consideration of the proximity of a child’s natural parents to the potential foster care placement of that child in order to facilitate visitation and family reunification, and if possible, for the placement to be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. (Family Code [FAM] 7950(a))
    
13. Requires placement, if possible, to be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child, and requires diligent efforts to be made by an agency or entity to locate an appropriate relative. Requires the court, at any permanency hearing in which the court terminates reunification services, or at any post-permanency hearing for a child not placed for adoption, to find that the agency or entity has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted as a possible caretaker, either by the relative or by other persons, has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource. (FAM 7950(a)(1))
    
14. Prohibits an agency or entity that receives any state assistance and is involved in foster care placements from doing either of the following:
    
    1. Deny to any person the opportunity to become a foster parent on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person or the child involved, which does not affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.); or
       
    2. Delay or deny the placement of a child into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the foster parent or the child involved. (FAM 7950(a)(2))
       
15. States that these provisions do not preclude a search for an appropriate relative from being conducted simultaneously with a search for a foster family. (FAM 7950(c))
    
16. Defines “child and family team” to mean a group of individuals who are convened by the placing agency and who are engaged through a variety of team-based processes to identify the strengths and needs of the child or youth and their family, and to help achieve positive outcomes for safety, permanency, and well-being. (WIC 16501(a)(4))

This Bill:

1. Provides that at every status review hearing, the court shall determine, for a child or nonminor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives or kin and the results of those efforts.
   
2. Provides each supplemental report filed for each status review hearing shall include, for a child or nonminor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, the continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent and the names of those relatives or kin. The social worker shall document the efforts and the results of those efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, “Costs (General Fund, federal funds) to county child welfare agencies of an unknown but potentially significant amount, possibly in the millions of dollars annually. The bill increases the workload of social workers and probation officers by requiring them to include additional documentation of their family finding efforts in reports provided to the court. Although these county workload costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 requires 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 to apply 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, “In California, there are nearly 45,000 children in foster care, with over 55% of them Latino. Children in foster care have experienced abuse, neglect, and other adverse childhood experiences that can negatively impact their health. Research shows that children in the foster care system who are placed with relatives have greater placement and school stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems in placement, and more connections to their biological family and social-cultural communities. AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success.”

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.

Current Requirements for Attempting to Locate Family for Placement

Under current law, when a child is removed from their home, the social worker must within 30 days conduct an investigation to identify and locate the child’s grandparents and other adult relatives. At subsequent hearings if the court is terminating reunification services or at post-permanency hearings, the court must find that the agency has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted has been evaluated as a potential placement. The law does not require that such information is included in court reports which would allow all parties in the case to know what efforts had been made and which, if any, relatives had been contacted.

Kinship Care and Family Placement

Kinship care refers to care of a child by relatives. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, a government organization providing information and tools for improving child welfare practice, kinship care is the preferred option in most U.S. child welfare systems because it is the least restrictive, most family like placement for children. They further note, children in kinship care environments have fewer disruptions and overall better permanency outcomes than children in non-familial placements.

The Juvenile Law Center writes, “Kinship care must be sought more frequently and be a top priority for Black and Native families and other communities in the child welfare system that have been historically disenfranchised, ripped apart, and devalued throughout American history. The child welfare system must prioritize the kinship care model to ensure the care of children, promote equity among families, sustain family/familial relationships, and to protect, and preserve the culture and history of these communities.”

This bill attempts to advance these goals by requiring at each status review hearing for the court to determine if the social worker has continued efforts to locate relatives or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement. The bill further attempts to advance the goal of placing children with kin by requiring each supplemental report filed for review hearings to include information on efforts the social worker has made to locate relative or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 448 (Juan Carrillo, 2023) was similar to this bill, but had an additional requirement for the social worker to conduct immediately, but no later than 30 days after the child has been removed, an investigation in order to identify and locate all relatives of the child, and to document their efforts to the court, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts and results of those efforts to locate relatives or kin. AB 448 was vetoed.

SB 384 (Cortese, Chapter 811, Statutes of 2022) required each county welfare and probation department to notify CDSS whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, as described, and how the practice has been implemented. Required a county who has not adopted one of the suggested practices to provide a copy of its existing family finding policies and practices to CDSS. Includes “family finding” activities within the due diligence required of a social worker and probation officer when investigating the names and locations of relatives.

SB 1091 (Hurtado, 2022) would have required that funds, appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose, be available to fund new or expanded family finding and engagement techniques and would have required CDSS to fund contracts with community-based organizations or to provide local assistance allocations to counties or Indian tribes, or both. SB 1091 would have further required CDSS to convene a leadership team to develop recommendations relating to family finding and engagement as provided. SB 1091 was set to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee but the hearing was cancelled by the author.

AB 2579 (Bennet, 2022) would have required county placing agencies to implement model practices for intensive family finding and support for foster children, children detained but not adjudicated, and candidates for foster care. The bill would have further required counties to submit a plan to CDSS as a condition of receiving funding for these purposes. AB 2579 was held on suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 354 (Skinner, Chapter 687, Statutes of 2021) adopted changes to the criminal background check process during the RFA process for relatives of children placed in the child welfare system. SB 354 further permitted the court to authorize placement of children with relatives in certain circumstances, regardless of the status of any criminal exemption or RFA; and, required, no later than January 1, 2024, CDSS to submit a report to the Legislature related to criminal record exemptions, as specified.

SB 1336 (Jackson, Chapter 890, Statutes of 2016) required the juvenile court to make a finding as to whether the social worker exercised due diligence in conducting their investigation to identify, locate, and notify the child’s relatives, including whether specific actions were taken.

AB 1761 (Hall, Chapter 765, Statutes of 2014) clarified that the placement priority for relatives and NREFM applies both prior to the detention hearing and also after the detention hearing and prior to the dispositional hearing.

AB 2391 (Calderon, 2014) would have required the county social worker and the court, when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider specified factors, and would have required that consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to a disposition hearing be given again without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made. AB

2391 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but was not set for hearing.

COMMENTS

Research has shown placing children with kin results in better well-being and behavioral health, increased stability, and higher levels of permanency. Kinship care allows children to remain connected with their families and reduce the trauma of being separated from their parents. This bill seeks to improve levels of relative placement by requiring information to be provided in reports for status review hearings, allowing all parties in a dependency case to have access to that information and potentially provide additional relatives names and contact information. This bill further seeks to increase placement with kin by requiring the court at each status review hearing to determine if the social worker has continued efforts to locate relatives or next of kin who could provide family support or possible placement.

Suggested Committee Amendment

This bill addresses the issue of relative placement. The background materials, as well as the existing law section above reference Family Code 7950. That code section cross-references WIC 319(f)(2) as the section that defines appropriate relative for placement. That is an error, and the correct cross reference is 319(h)(2), the committee suggests the following technical amendment to correct this error:

7950.

(a) With full consideration for the proximity of the natural parents to the placement so as to facilitate visitation and family reunification, when a placement in foster care is being made, the following considerations shall be used:

(1) Placement shall, if possible, be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. Diligent efforts shall be made by an agency or entity to which this subdivision applies, to locate an appropriate relative, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) (h) of Section 319 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. At any permanency hearing in which the court terminates reunification services, or at any postpermanency hearing for a child not placed for adoption, the court shall find that the agency or entity to which this subdivision applies has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted to the agency or entity as a possible caretaker, either by the relative or by other persons, has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource.

(2) An agency or entity that receives any state assistance and is involved in foster care placements shall not do either of the following:

(A) Deny to any person the opportunity to become a foster parent on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person or the child involved.

(B) Delay or deny the placement of a child into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the foster parent or the child involved.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.).

(c) This section does not preclude a search for an appropriate relative being conducted simultaneously with a search for a foster family.

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Children's Law Center of California (Sponsor)

A New Way of Life Reentry Project
California Alliance of Caregivers
Judicial Council of California
Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC.

Oppose:

None

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2929

Author:(Juan Carrillo)

As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires courts and social workers to consider, in status review hearings and supplemental reports, respectively, whether appropriate efforts have been made to locate family members who could support or accept placement of a foster child or non-minor dependent.

Major Provisions

1. Requires the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or non-minor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, made active efforts – to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child.
2. Requires the social worker's supplemental report for a child or non-minor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to include the efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts – that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or non-minor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin.

COMMENTS

"Family finding" efforts and California's juvenile dependency and foster care system. Existing law authorizes a court to declare a child a "dependent" of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious harm due to the abuse or neglect of a parent or guardian. This process often begins after a police officer or social worker, having found an at-risk child, files a dependency petition with the court. Subject to the court’s findings, the child either returns to the home (often with supervision), or remains in custody as the court holds a series of periodic dispositional hearings. Once a child is a dependent and placed into foster care, existing law requires the court to conduct a status review hearing at least every six months to consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of parents or guardians, or remain in foster care.

While the primary objective of the child welfare system is to protect children from neglect and abuse, the law also favors continuing contact with family members, including extended family members. The reasons for this preference is well-founded. Studies cited by the author and sponsor demonstrate that children who are placed with relatives instead of in foster homes. do much better. They benefit from familial stability and continuity, preserve important connections to cultural identity and community, and experience fewer changes in schools. In order to maintain the family connections that provide children with these benefits, at each stage of the dependency process, the law creates a presumption in favor of placing children with "fit and willing relatives," unless the court finds that doing so would pose a substantial risk to the welfare of the child. Further reflecting this policy preference, two years ago AB 207 (Chapter 573, Statutes of 2022) created the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Programs. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 16546-16549.) The Center and its programs provide training and technical assistance for county child welfare and probation departments to further the goal of placing foster youth with relatives whenever possible or, in the case of Native American children, with the child's tribe or in a tribally-approved placement. Several other provisions of the Welfare & Institutions Code require the courts to consider, and social workers and probation officers to document, their family-finding efforts.

This bill, in light of these policy preferences, requires the court, at each six-month status review hearing, to consider whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, active efforts – to locate any relatives who could provide family support or possible placement of the child. Arguably, existing law already requires the court to reconsider such factors, given that the purpose of the status review hearing is to assess placement plans and the preferred placement is with the child's relatives if possible. The bill would also require a social worker to include information about their family finding efforts in the supplemental report they are required to prepare for the status review hearing. This too is arguably at least implicit in existing law. That is, existing law already requires social workers to document their efforts in this regard and already requires them to submit a supplemental report for purposes of the six-month status review hearing. This bill would simply require the supplemental report to include information and documentation on those required efforts in the supplemental report, so that the court may consider it as part of the status review.

How this bill differs from AB 448, which was vetoed (and possibly misread), by the Governor. Last year, the author's AB 448 provided broader requirements than this bill. In addition to requiring social workers and probation officers to include information about their family finding efforts, last year's bill also required the social worker to "conduct an investigation" to locate relatives who were willing and able to offer support and a placement for the child. This provision was somewhat confusing, for existing law already required social workers to conduct such an investigation within 30 days of the child's removal; AB 448 required the social worker to "immediately conduct [the investigation], but no later than 30 days after the child has been removed." While AB 448 added the word "immediately," under both existing law and AB 448, the social worker was required to conduct the investigation within 30 days of removal. Adding to the confusion about what AB 448 required, the veto message implied that AB 448 would have required the social workers to conduct a new investigation, when in fact that investigation was already required in existing law. The veto message, while agreeing with the policy aims, feared that the bill, and especially the supposedly "new" investigation, would impose too great a fiscal cost on the counties. In fact, the AB 448 would only have required social workers to include information about those already-required investigations in their supplemental reports. In addition, AB 448 would have required reporting on family-finding efforts at the earlier stages of the process, including at the initial petition hearing. AB 2929 is substantially different and much narrower than AB 448. First, it avoids the confusing and unnecessary language about conducting investigations and instead simply requires social workers to include information on these already-required efforts in their supplemental reports. Second, AB 2929, unlike AB 448, only applies to the six-month status review hearing.

In sum, this bill is a modest and sensible measure that will help the state better meet its long-standing policy of placing foster youth with relatives who are willing and able to take them in, instead of placing them with non-relatives in a foster care setting. The bill does not impose any new investigative or documentation requirements on social workers or on the courts. Rather, it requires social workers to provide information on efforts that they are already required to undertake and already required to document. It requires the court to consider that information when holding the required six-month status review hearing.

According to the Author

According to the author, in recent years, California has devoted increasing resources to expand "family finding efforts" for youth in foster care. These efforts reflect an underlying policy, supported by substantial empirical evidence, showing that foster children fare much better when they are placed with relatives than when they are placed with non-relatives in foster homes. The author contends, "AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state's commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success."

Arguments in Support

According to the bill's sponsor, the Children's Law Center of California (CLC) family finding "is a critical tool already at the disposal of social workers that can increase relative placements among youth removed from parental care. Relative placement has been shown to be in the best interest of a child for a variety of reasons, including increased stability for a child, preservation of cultural identity and connections to the community, and fewer school changes." CLC notes that both "state and federal law include a preference to place children in out-of-home care with relatives," and, reinforcing this policy preference, studies have "demonstrated the significant benefit to children in the child welfare system that are placed with relatives rather than with strangers in foster homes or in group care." CLC believes that delays in engaging with relatives "often means that the relative will not be selected as placement for the child." CLC believes that "AB 2929 seeks to avoid these unnecessary delays by ensuring all parties involved in the child welfare case (attorneys, judicial officers) will have the information necessary to facilitate meaningful and ongoing connections between the youth and their family."

Several other organizations that advocate for youth, and on behalf of foster youth in particular, support AB 2929 for substantially similar reasons. The supporters believe that this measure will allow the state to better realize the policy preferences in existing law by expressly requiring courts to consider, and social workers to document in reports supplied to the court, their continuing and active efforts to find relatives willing and able to provide a safe and appropriate placement of children and non-minor dependents.

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations analysis, costs (General Fund, federal funds) to county child welfare agencies of an unknown but potentially significant amount, possibly in the millions of dollars annually. The bill increases the workload of social workers and probation officers by requiring them to include additional documentation of their family finding efforts in reports provided to the court. Although these county workload costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 requires 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 to apply 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: 12-0-0

YES: Kalra, Dixon, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes, Sanchez, Waldron

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 6-0-1

YES: Lee, Essayli, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Mathis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: February 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Tom Clark / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0003041

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2929

Author:(Juan Carrillo) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a court, at the six-month status review hearing in a child dependency case, to consider whether a social worker or probation officer has made specified efforts to locate the child’s relatives. The bill additionally requires a social worker or probation officer to include in their report to the court additional documentation of their family finding efforts.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Costs (General Fund, federal funds) to county child welfare agencies of an unknown but potentially significant amount, possibly in the millions of dollars annually. The bill increases the workload of social workers and probation officers by requiring them to include additional documentation of their family finding efforts in reports provided to the court. Although these county workload costs are mandated by the state, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012). Proposition 30 requires 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 to apply 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:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success

1. Background. Under California’s child welfare system, if a child is removed from their parents’ custody due to substantiated reports of abuse or neglect, a social worker or probation officer must conduct an investigation to identify and locate the child’s other relatives. A county welfare or probation department must use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as specified, in an effort to identify possible placements and family support for the child.

This bill requires a social worker or probation officer to include additional documentation in their status review report to the court about their family finding efforts. The bill also requires a court to, at a status review hearing, determine whether the social worker or probation officer has made continued efforts (or active efforts, in the case of an Indian child) to locate the child’s relatives.

1. Prior Legislation. AB 448 (Juan Carrillo), of this legislative session, was similar to this bill, but also required a social worker to conduct an immediate investigation regarding a dependent child’s relatives. AB 448 was vetoed by the Governor, who wrote:

Last year’s Budget Act allocated $150 million General Fund for the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Program, which supports culturally responsive, family-centered, and trauma-informed family-finding and engagement services that focus on maintaining permanent connections for foster children with their family members. The new documentation requirements in this bill would result in ongoing General Fund costs of over $6 million to support the increased administrative workload for county child welfare agencies and county probation departments. Though this policy has merit, its costs must be considered as part of the annual budget process.

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 2929 (

Author:Juan Carrillo) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

SUBJECT: Dependents: family finding

SUMMARY: Requires the court to determine whether the social worker has continued efforts to locate relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of a child or nonminor dependent (NMD) who is in foster care and for the social worker to document those efforts and their results. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court at the six-month status review of a dependent child in foster care to determine, for a child or NMD who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, whether the social worker has continued efforts, and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts, to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or NMD, and the names of those relatives or kin and the results of those efforts.
2. Requires each supplemental report required to be filed at the six-month status review to include a factual discussion of the information required pursuant to 1) above, and for the social worker to document the efforts and the results of those efforts.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes a state and local system of child welfare services, including foster care, for children who have been adjudged by the court to be at risk of abuse and neglect or have been abused or neglected, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code [WIC] § 202)
2. Defines “active efforts” to mean affirmative, active, thorough, and timely efforts intended primarily to maintain or reunite an Indian child with their family. Requires, if an agency is involved in an Indian child custody proceeding, active efforts to involve assisting the parent, parents, or Indian custodian through the steps of a case plan and with accessing or developing the resources necessary to satisfy the case plan. Requires active efforts to be provided in a manner consistent with the prevailing social and cultural conditions and way of life of the Indian child’s tribe, conducted in partnership with the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents, extended family members, Indian custodians, and tribe. Requires active efforts to be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the case. (WIC § 224(f))
3. States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being physically, sexually, emotionally abused, neglected, or exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm. (WIC § 300.2)
4. States legislative intent to preserve and strengthen a child’s family ties whenever possible and to reunify a foster youth with their biological family whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement alternative, such as adoption or guardianship. (WIC § 16000)
5. Requires a county to file a petition to the court requesting a detention hearing within 48 hours of placing a child under temporary custody to determine whether a child should remain in custody and whether any specific court permissions are necessary to provide for the health and safety of the child. (WIC §§ 313 and 319)
6. Requires, if a child is removed, the social worker to conduct, within 30 days an investigation in order to identify and locate all grandparents, parents of a sibling of the child, if the parent has legal custody of the sibling, adult siblings, other adult relatives of the child, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know. (WIC § 309(e)(1))
7. Requires a social worker to use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parents, and requires each county welfare department to do both of the following:
8. Create and make public a procedure by which a parent and relatives of a child who has been removed from their parents or guardians may identify themselves to the county welfare department and requires the county welfare department to provide parents and relatives with specified notices; and,
9. Notify the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented. Requires, if a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, the county welfare department to provide a copy to CDSS of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document. (WIC § 309(e)(3))
10. Defines “family finding” to mean conducting an investigation, including, but not limited to, through a computer-based search engine, to identify relatives and kin and to connect a child or youth, who may be disconnected from their parents, with those relatives and kin in an effort to provide family support and possible placement. If it is known or there is reason to know that the child is an Indian child, as defined “family finding” also includes contacting the Indian child’s tribe to identify relatives and kin. (WIC § 309(e)(3)(B)
11. Requires preferential consideration be given to a request by a relative to have the child placed with the relative if the child has been removed from the physical custody of the child's parent(s). (WIC § 361.3(a))
12. Requires, when placing a child in the home of a relative, an extended family member, or non-relative extended family member (NREFM) on a temporary basis, the court to consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment required by current law, 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 NREFM. (WIC § 319(h)(3))
13. Requires CDSS to provide technical assistance to encourage and facilitate the county placement agency’s evaluation of placement needs and the development of needed placement resources and programs. (WIC § 16001.1)
14. Requires updates by counties as it relates to children placed by child welfare, the family finding activities attempted or underway, or other activities to connect the child to caring adults outside of the congregate (group home) care setting; identification of the counties that have any existing or planned contracts, or efforts to directly provide or contract for intensive child specific recruitment services; identification of counties with any existing or planned specialty mental health services targeted to address the mental health service needs of a foster child transitioning from congregate care to permanency or other family-based care setting, and a summary of any gaps that remain; and the number of children that successfully achieved permanency following receipt of the services described. (WIC § 16523.57)
15. Requires the juvenile court to make full consideration of the proximity of a child’s natural parents to the potential foster care placement of that child in order to facilitate visitation and family reunification, and if possible, for the placement to be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child. (Family Code [FAM] § 7950(a))
16. Requires placement, if possible, to be made in the home of a relative, unless the placement would not be in the best interest of the child, and requires diligent efforts to be made by an agency or entity to locate an appropriate relative. Requires the court, at any permanency hearing in which the court terminates reunification services, or at any post-permanency hearing for a child not placed for adoption, to find that the agency or entity has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted as a possible caretaker, either by the relative or by other persons, has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource. (FAM § 7950 (a)(1))
17. Prohibits an agency or entity that receives any state assistance and is involved in foster care placements from doing either of the following:
18. Deny to any person the opportunity to become a foster parent on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the person or the child involved, which does not affect the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 United States Code § 1901 et seq.); or,
19. Delay or deny the placement of a child into foster care on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the foster parent or the child involved. (FAM § 7950(a)(2))
20. States that these provisions do not preclude a search for an appropriate relative from being conducted simultaneously with a search for a foster family. (FAM § 7950(c))
21. Defines “child and family team” to mean a group of individuals who are convened by the placing agency and who are engaged through a variety of team-based processes to identify the strengths and needs of the child or youth and their family, and to help achieve positive outcomes for safety, permanency, and well-being. (WIC § 16501(a)(4))

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

COMMENTS:

Background: Child Welfare Services. California’s child welfare services system exists to protect children from abuse and neglect, and in doing so, to provide for their health, safety, and overall well-being. When suspicions of abuse or neglect arise, often as a result of a report by a mandated reporter like a doctor or teacher, Child Protective Services is tasked with investigating the report. If the allegation of abuse or neglect is substantiated, it is then determined whether it is in the best interest of the child to remain in their parent’s custody or to be placed within the child welfare services system. If a child is suspected to be at risk of neglect, abuse, or abandonment, the juvenile court holds legal jurisdiction, and the system appoints a social worker to ensure that the needs of a youth are met. California’s child welfare services provided on behalf of each child represent a continuum of services, including emergency response services, family preservation services, family maintenance services, family reunification services, and permanent placement services, including supportive transition services, with the child’s individual case plan being the guiding principle in the provision of these services. The case plan is required to be developed within a maximum of 60 days of the initial removal of the child. Prevention services such as substance use disorder treatment and in-home parenting support are provided to families who are at risk of child removal. As of January 1, 2024, there are 43,633 youth between birth and 20 years of age in foster care.

California's child welfare services programs are administered by the 58 individual counties which means that each county organizes and operates its own program of child protection based on local needs while complying with state and federal regulations. Counties are the primary governmental entities that interact with children and families when addressing issues of child abuse and neglect. Counties, either directly or through providers, are responsible for obtaining or providing the interventions and applicable services to protect the well-being of children and to help families address issues of child abuse and neglect. CDSS monitors and provides support in the counties’ efforts to best serve children and families.

Continuum of Care Reform (CCR). Beginning in 2015, California enacted legislation, known as CCR, to improve placement and treatment options for youth in foster care. AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015, sponsored by CDSS, sought to improve outcomes for children and youth served by the child welfare system by working to ensure that foster youth have their day-to-day physical, mental, and emotional needs met, that they have the opportunity to grow up in permanent and supportive homes and have the opportunities necessary to become self-sufficient and successful adults. CCR also sought to reduce the use of congregate care as a frequently used placement option for youth, as data have demonstrated that youth placed in congregate care settings experience poorer outcomes than youth placed in family settings.

As part of the reforms set forth by CCR, the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process was established. The RFA process is a unified, family-friendly, and child-centered process that combines elements of foster parent licensing, relative approval, and adoption/guardianship approval processes. The RFA process includes a psychosocial assessment, home environment check, and training for all resource families (formerly known as foster families), including relatives, in order to ensure that caregivers are equipped to best meet the needs of youth in foster care. RFA is also a route to direct permanency for caregivers who wish to adopt or be guardians of youth in care, as the RFA process includes elements required by both the adoption and guardianship processes.

Existing law requires the juvenile court, during the dispositional hearing for a dependent child, to make a finding that the child’s social worker has exercised due diligence in identifying, locating, and notifying the child’s relatives. Effective January 1, 2017, all new relative home placements were required to meet RFA standards, and counties are encouraged to consider the likelihood that a relative will be able to meet those standards when evaluating that possibility. Existing law also provides for a process to place with a relative, either on an emergency basis or based on a compelling reason, prior to full RFA approval.

Family Finding and Due Diligence. It has long been the goal of the child welfare services system to preserve familial ties whenever possible. Under certain circumstances, family maintenance services are provided to families in order to prevent the removal of children from their parents’ home, including family therapy, parenting classes, or substance use treatment. However, in instances when a youth is removed from the custody of their parents and placed temporarily in an out-of-home placement through the foster care system, county social workers are required to locate any relatives or NREFMs who may serve as caregivers to the youth.

According to All Counties Letter (ACL) 18-42, distributed by CDSS, family finding and engagement is defined as a broad concept which encompasses not only the statutory requirements pertaining to identifying, locating, and notifying the relatives of a child in foster care, but also related efforts to foster life-long familial connections for children and youth in care. The ACL further describes these additional efforts, which are meant to enhance the long-term well-being of children and youth in care, as an important component of CCR’s goal to reduce the use of congregate care and improve child welfare outcomes. Intensive family finding and engagement can be used by counties to identify possible relative or NREFM placements for children and youth currently placed in group homes, potentially allowing those children and youth to step down to a home-based care setting, consistent with the goals of CCR. Counties are also urged to seek out the practice of family finding and engagement above and beyond the statutorily required relative finding, to be used when opening a case as a way to identify the best possible placement for the child or youth.

Research shows that children placed with their own relatives and extended family members have greater placement stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, and more connections to their biological families and social-cultural communities. The Budget Act of 2022 allocated $150 million from the General Fund in one-time funding, available for expenditure through June 30, 2027, for the purposes of participation in the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (EFFES) Program and the provisions available to support implementation through the establishment of The Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (CFE).

In furtherance of these goals, CDSS has contracted with the University of California, Davis to launch CFE to support efforts to keep children and youth connected to their biological and extended families and will provide multi-tiered, culturally appropriate training and technical assistance such as conducting evidence-based, organization-specific assessments of implementation activities, and strengthening trauma-informed practices and programs related to family finding and engagement.

CFE will provide training and technical assistance for counties and tribes that have opted to participate in the EFFES program. Specialized training and support will be available to county welfare agencies, probation departments, participating tribes, and foster care providers to enhance their practices, policies, and efforts for family finding, support, and engagement. CFE will also provide training on how to engage children and young people in the family-finding process. All trainings will utilize subject matter experts in family finding and engagement and permanency.

During the initial and dispositional hearings, current law requires the court to find that the social worker has exercised due diligence in locating relatives. At subsequent hearings for children who are not returned home in which the court terminates reunification services, or at any post-permanency hearing for a child not placed for adoption, the court must find that the agency has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative and that each relative whose name has been submitted to the agency as a possible caretaker, either by the relative or by other persons, has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource. However, the law does not specify that the information needed for these findings be included in the court reports or provided to the child's attorney. For children in foster care who are not placed with kin, this bill would require the court reports for review hearings to include information on any continuing efforts to identify and locate adult relatives who could provide family support or possible placement so that the court can make the above findings as well as easily identify those children for whom family finding has not been done.

Governor’s Veto Message. This bill is substantially similar to AB 447 (Juan Carrillo) of 2023, which was vetoed by Governor Newsom. The Governor’s veto message stated:

This bill would require a social worker to conduct a family-finding investigation to identify and locate adult relatives within 30 days after a child has been taken into temporary custody and would make changes to reporting and documentation requirements for social workers and probation officers.

My Administration recognizes the value of keeping children connected to their biological and extended families. Children placed with family members have greater placement stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, and more connection to their social-cultural communities. Existing law already requires that, if a child is removed from their home, the social worker or probation officer must, within 30 days, investigate to identify adult relatives of the child.

Last year's Budget Act allocated $150 million General Fund for the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Program, which supports culturally responsive, family-centered, and trauma-informed family-finding and engagement services that focus on maintaining permanent connections for foster children with their family members. The new documentation requirements in this bill would result in ongoing General Fund costs of over $6 million to support the increased administrative workload for county child welfare agencies and county probation departments. Though this policy has merit, its costs must be considered as part of the annual budget process.

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

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

In order to address Governor Newsom’s concerns stated above, the Author of this bill has removed provisions requiring new family finding be performed; only that the documentation of any efforts be included in the court reports prepared for review hearings for those children not placed with relatives/kin.

Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “In California, there are nearly 45,000 children in foster care, with over 55% of them Latino. Children in foster care have experienced abuse, neglect, and other adverse childhood experiences that can negatively impact their health. Research shows that children in the foster care system who are placed with relatives have greater placement and school stability, fewer emotional and behavioral problems in placement, and more connections to their biological family and social-cultural communities.

“[This bill] serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success.”

Equity Implications: The provisions of this bill seek to build upon the practices enshrined in SB 384 (Cortese), Chapter, 811 Statutes of 2022, that required counties to notify CDSS of their family finding practices, by additionally requiring social workers to document for the court what efforts they have made to locate relatives, along with their names, and whether they would be able and willing to take temporary custody of a child. SB 384 also requires this documentation to the court to continue at subsequent status reviews and to be included in the factual discussion of each social study or evaluation. The documentation of these efforts, along with the names of potential familial placements would allow attorneys and other judicial officers, who are also involved in the child welfare case of a youth, to have access to the information needed to maintain familial ties and potentially find a permanent placement with family.

According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) in a March, 2022 publication, the proportions of Black and Native American youth in foster care are around four times larger than the proportions of Black and Native American youth in California overall. In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of California’s 1999 birth cohort found nearly one in two Black and Native American children experienced some level of child welfare involvement by the time they turned 18 (compared to around 29% of Latino children, 22% of White children, and 13% of Asian/Pacific Islander children). The LAO states that this same research also found that California children with public insurance (Medi-Cal) experienced child welfare involvement at more than twice the rate of those with private insurance.

Double referral: This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, on
April 2, 2024, and was approved on consent with a 12-0 vote.

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

AB 448 (Juan Carrillo) of 2023, would have required a social worker to immediately conduct an investigation to identify and locate adult relatives after a child has been taken into temporary custody. Would have also required a social worker to report to the court what efforts and findings they have made to locate relatives who are able and willing to take temporary custody and to include these efforts in the factual discussion of each social study or evaluation. Further would have required the court to additionally determine whether the social worker has continued efforts to locate any relatives, and the names of any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary custody of the child. AB 448 was vetoed by Governor Newsom due to cost.

SB 384 (Cortese), Chapter 811, Statutes of 2022, required each county welfare and probation department to notify CDSS whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, as described, and how the practice has been implemented. Required a county who has not adopted one of the suggested practices to provide a copy of its existing family finding policies and practices to CDSS. Includes "family finding" activities within the due diligence required of a social worker and probation officer when investigating the names and locations of relatives.

SB 1091 (Hurtado) of 2022, would have required that funds, appropriated by the Legislature for this purpose, be available to fund new or expanded family finding and engagement techniques and would have required CDSS to fund contracts with community-based organizations or to provide local assistance allocations to counties or Indian tribes, or both. SB 1091 would have further required CDSS to convene a leadership team to develop recommendations relating to family finding and engagement as provided. SB 1091 was set to be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee but the hearing was cancelled by the author.

AB 2579 (Bennet) of 2022, would have required county placing agencies to implement model practices for intensive family finding and support for foster children, children detained but not adjudicated, and candidates for foster care. AB 2579 would have further required counties to submit a plan to CDSS as a condition of receiving funding for these purposes. AB 2579 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 354 (Skinner), Chapter 687, Statutes of 2021, adopted changes to the criminal background check process during the RFA process for relatives of children placed in the child welfare system. SB 354 further permitted the court to authorize placement of children with relatives in certain circumstances, regardless of the status of any criminal exemption or RFA; and, required, no later than January 1, 2024, CDSS to submit a report to the Legislature related to criminal record exemptions, as specified.

SB 1336 (Jackson), Chapter 890, Statutes of 2016, required the juvenile court to make a finding as to whether the social worker exercised due diligence in conducting their investigation to identify, locate, and notify the child’s relatives, including whether specific actions were taken.

AB 1761 (Hall), Chapter 765, Statutes of 2014, clarified that the placement priority for relatives and NREFM applies both prior to the detention hearing and also after the detention hearing and prior to the dispositional hearing.

AB 2391 (Calderon) of 2014, would have required the county social worker and the court, when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider specified factors, and would have required that consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to a disposition hearing be given again without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made.
AB 2391 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but was not set for hearing.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Children's Law Center of California (Sponsor)

Alliance for Children's Rights

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

Dependency Advocacy Center

Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Judicial Council of California

Opposition

None on file.

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

Date of Hearing: April 2, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2929

Author:(Juan Carrillo) – As Introduced Ver:February 15, 2024

proposed consent

SUBJECT: Dependents: family finding

KEY ISSUES:

1. Should courts, when conducting periodic status reviews for dependent children and non-minor dependents, consider whether social workers are making sufficient efforts to locate relatives who might provide support or a possible placement?
2. Should social workers include information on their EFFORTS TO LOCATE relatives WHO MIGHT PROVIDE SUPPORT OR a POSSIBLE PLACEMENT in supplemental reports submitted to the court?

SYNOPSIS

Existing law authorizes a court to declare a child a “dependent” of the court if the child has suffered, or is in substantial risk of suffering, serious harm due to the abuse or neglect by a parent or guardian. This often occurs after a police officer or a social worker, who has identified an at-risk child, files a dependency petition with the court. Subject to the court’s findings, the child either returns to the home (often with supervision), or remains in custody until the child is adopted or a legal guardianship is established. Existing law requires the court to conduct a status review hearing at least every six months to consider whether the child can be returned to the home or will remain in foster care. If a child cannot be safely returned to a parent or legal guardian, and no other permanent and appropriate placement is found, they remain in foster care until they are adopted or age out of the foster care system. However, in order to maintain family connections to the greatest extent possible, existing law creates a presumption in favor of placing children with relatives or other persons well-known to the child, unless the court finds that doing so would pose a substantial risk to the welfare of the child. Reflecting this policy preference, the Legislature created and funded the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Programs in order to provide training and technical assistance to child welfare and probation departments to further the goal of placing foster youth with relatives whenever possible and, in the case of Native American children, placing children in culturally-appropriate placements.

This bill, in light of these policy preferences, requires the court, at each six-month status review hearing, to consider whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, made active efforts – to locate any relatives who could provide family support or a placement for the child. The bill would also require the social worker to include information about family finding efforts in the supplemental report they are required to prepare for the status review hearing. The bill is sponsored by the Children’s Law Center of California and supported by other youth advocacy groups with no known opposition. The bill will be referred to the Assembly Human Services Committee if it is approved by this Committee.

SUMMARY: Requires courts and social workers to consider, in status review hearings and supplemental reports, respectively, whether appropriate efforts have been made to locate family members who could support or accept placement of a foster child or non-minor dependent. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the court, in conducting the periodic status review for a child or non-minor dependent who is not residing with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian, to determine whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, made active efforts – to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child.
2. Requires the social worker’s supplemental report for a child or non-minor dependent who does not reside with their relatives, kin, or an Indian custodian to include the efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, the active efforts – that the social worker has made to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or non-minor dependent and the name of those relatives or kin.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a child may be adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court if the child has suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm inflicted non-accidentally upon the child by the child’s parent or guardian. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300. All subsequent statutory references are the Welfare and Institutions Code.)
2. Provides that when a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court pursuant to 1) above, the court may limit the control to be exercised over the dependent child by any parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and shall by its order clearly and specifically set forth all those limitations. Any limitation on the right of the parent, guardian, or Indian custodian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. Specifies that the limitations may not exceed those necessary to protect the child. (Section 361.)
3. Provides that when a child is removed from the physical custody of their parents pursuant to the above, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative. Specifies the factors that the social worker and court shall consider when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate. (Section 361.3.)
4. Requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care at least once every six months. Specifies that the court shall consider the safety of the child and determine the continuing necessity and appropriateness of the child’s placement, as specified. (Section 366.)
5. Requires the court, after considering the evidence in the status review described in 4) above, to return 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. Requires the county social worker to file a supplemental report that addresses, among other things, the social worker’s efforts to maintain relationships between the child and persons important to the child and the prognosis for returning the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. (Section 366.21.)
6. Requires, on and after October 1, 2021, for a child whose placement in a short-term residential therapeutic program has been approved, and, on or after July 1, 2022, for a child whose placement in a community treatment facility, that the supplemental report referenced in 5) to include ongoing assessments that the child’s needs cannot be met by family members or in another family-based setting, and to include documentation of the intensive and ongoing efforts to prepare the child to return home or to be placed with a fit and willing relative, legal guardian, adoptive parent, tribally-approved home, or another appropriate family-based setting. (Section 361.1 (m), 366.22.)
7. Establishes the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Programs to provide, or contract for the provision of, multi-tiered, culturally appropriate training and technical assistance to county child welfare and probation departments, participating tribes, and foster care providers to enhance their practices, policies, and efforts for family finding, support, and engagement. (Sections 16546-16549.)

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

COMMENTS: According to the author, in recent years, California has devoted increasing resources to expand “family finding efforts” for youth in foster care. These efforts reflect an underlying policy, supported by substantial empirical evidence, showing that foster children fare much better when they are placed with relatives than when they are placed with non-relatives in foster homes. The author contends, “AB 2929 serves as a testament to our state’s commitment to advancing the well-being of our foster youth by promoting important and stable family connections. The positive impacts of reuniting foster children with their families are immeasurable and this bill aligns with our shared values of supporting countless vulnerable children who deserve every opportunity for success.”

“Family finding” efforts and California’s juvenile dependency and foster care system. Existing law authorizes a court to declare a child a “dependent” of the court if the child has suffered, or is at substantial risk of suffering, serious harm due to the abuse or neglect of a parent or guardian. This process often begins after a police officer or social worker, having found an at-risk child, files a dependency petition with the court. Subject to the court’s findings, the child either returns to the home (often with supervision), or remains in custody as the court holds a series of periodic dispositional hearings. Once a child is a dependent and placed into foster care, existing law requires the court to conduct a status review hearing at least every six months to consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of parents or guardians, or remain in foster care.

While the primary objective of the child welfare system is to protect children from neglect and abuse, the law also favors continuing contact with family members, including extended family members. The reasons for this preference is well-founded. Studies cited by the author and sponsor demonstrate that children who are placed with relatives instead of in foster homes. do much better. They benefit from familial stability and continuity, preserve important connections to cultural identity and community, and experience fewer changes in schools. In order to maintain the family connections that provide children with these benefits, at each stage of the dependency process, the law creates a presumption in favor of placing children with “fit and willing relatives,” unless the court finds that doing so would pose a substantial risk to the welfare of the child. Further reflecting this policy preference, two years ago AB 207 (Chap. 573, Stats. 2022) created the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support Programs. (Welfare & Institutions Code Sections 16546-16549.) The Center and its programs provide training and technical assistance for county child welfare and probation departments to further the goal of placing foster youth with relatives whenever possible or, in the case of Native American children, with the child’s tribe or in a tribally-approved placement. Several other provisions of the Welfare & Institutions Code require the courts to consider, and social workers and probation officers to document, their family-finding efforts.

This bill, in light of these policy preferences, requires the court, at each six-month status review hearing, to consider whether the social worker has made continuing efforts – and in the case of an Indian child, active efforts – to locate any relatives who could provide family support or possible placement of the child. Arguably, existing law already requires the court to reconsider such factors, given that the purpose of the status review hearing is to assess placement plans and the preferred placement is with the child’s relatives if possible. The bill would also require a social worker to include information about their family finding efforts in the supplemental report they are required to prepare for the status review hearing. This too is arguably at least implicit in existing law. That is, existing law already requires social workers to document their efforts in this regard and already requires them to submit a supplemental report for purposes of the six-month status review hearing. This bill would simply require the supplemental report to include information and documentation on those required efforts in the supplemental report, so that the court may consider it as part of the status review.

How this bill differs from AB 448, which was vetoed (and possibly misread), by the Governor. Last year, the author’s AB 448 provided broader requirements than the bill now before the Committee. In addition to requiring social workers and probation officers to include information about their family finding efforts, last year’s bill also required the social worker to “conduct an investigation” to locate relatives who were willing and able to offer support and a placement for the child. This provision was somewhat confusing, for existing law already required social workers to conduct such an investigation within 30 days of the child’s removal; AB 448 required the social worker to “immediately conduct [the investigation], but no later than 30 days after the child has been removed.” While AB 448 added the word “immediately,” under both existing law and AB 448, the social worker was required to conduct the investigation within 30 days of removal. Adding to the confusion about what AB 448 required, the veto message implied that AB 448 would have required the social workers to conduct a new investigation, when in fact that investigation was already required in existing law. The veto message, while agreeing with the policy aims, feared that the bill, and especially the supposedly “new” investigation, would impose too great a fiscal cost on the counties. In fact, the AB 448 would only have required social workers to include information about those already-required investigations in their supplemental reports. In addition, AB 448 would have required reporting on family-finding efforts at the earlier stages of the process, including at the initial petition hearing. The bill before the Committee is substantially different and much narrower than AB 448. First, it avoids the confusing and unnecessary language about conducting investigations and instead simply requires social workers to include information on these already-required efforts in their supplemental reports. Second, the bill before the Committee, unlike AB 448, only applies to the six-month status review hearing.

In sum, this bill is a modest and sensible measure that will help the state better meet its long-standing policy of placing foster youth with relatives who are willing and able to take them in, instead of placing them with non-relatives in a foster care setting. The bill does not impose any new investigative or documentation requirements on social workers or on the courts. Rather, it requires social workers to provide information on efforts that they are already required to undertake and already required to document. It requires the court to consider that information when holding the required six-month status review hearing.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the bill’s sponsor, the Children’s Law Center of California (CLC) family finding “is a critical tool already at the disposal of social workers that can increase relative placements among youth removed from parental care. Relative placement has been shown to be in the best interest of a child for a variety of reasons, including increased stability for a child, preservation of cultural identity and connections to the community, and fewer school changes.” CLC notes that both “state and federal law include a preference to place children in out-of-home care with relatives,” and, reinforcing this policy preference, studies have “demonstrated the significant benefit to children in the child welfare system that are placed with relatives rather than with strangers in foster homes or in group care.” CLC believes that delays in engaging with relatives “often means that the relative will not be selected as placement for the child.” CLC believes that “AB 2929 seeks to avoid these unnecessary delays by ensuring all parties involved in the child welfare case (attorneys, judicial officers) will have the information necessary to facilitate meaningful and ongoing connections between the youth and their family.”

Several other organizations that advocate for youth, and on behalf of foster youth in particular, support AB 2929 for substantially similar reasons. The supporters believe that this measure will allow the state to better realize the policy preferences in existing law by expressly requiring courts to consider, and social workers to document in reports supplied to the court, their continuing and active efforts to find relatives willing and able to provide a safe and appropriate placement of children and non-minor dependents.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Children’s Law Center of California (sponsor)

Alliance for Children's Rights

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Court Appointed Special Advocate Association

Dependency Advocacy Center

Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification 4 Everyone

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Opposition

None on file

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