AB 562: Foster care: placement: family finding.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2025-10-07
Current Status:
Passed
(2025-10-07: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 436, Statutes of 2025.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill requires county welfare departments to each year compare their rate of placing foster children with relatives to the statewide average, and for Native American children to compare placements under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. If a county’s rate is lower than the statewide average, the county welfare director must consult with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify and adopt practices to increase kinship placements.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law requires a county social worker to investigate the circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace officer under specified circumstances. Existing law requires the social worker to conduct an investigation, within 30 days of the childs removal, to identify and locate adult relatives of the child, as specified, and to provide them with a notification that the child has been removed from the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and an explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child.
This bill, the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, would require, beginning January 1, 2027, each county to review publicly available data comparing the statewide national average rate of placing children with relatives in the prior year for comparison with the countys placement rate during the same period, and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, as specified. The bill would require that, if the countys placement rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to consult with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its placement rate, as specified. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
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 requires a county social worker to investigate the circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace officer under specified circumstances. Existing law requires the social worker to conduct an investigation, within 30 days of the childs removal, to identify and locate adult relatives of the child, as specified, and to provide them with a notification that the child has been removed from the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and an explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child.
This bill, the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, would require, beginning January 1, 2027, each county to review publicly available data comparing the statewide national average rate of placing children with relatives in the prior year for comparison with the countys placement rate during the same period, and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, as specified. The bill would require that, if the countys placement rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to consult with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its placement rate, as specified. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
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 requires a county social worker to investigate the circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace officer under specified circumstances. Existing law requires the social worker to conduct an investigation, within 30 days of the childs removal, to identify and locate adult relatives of the child, as specified, and to provide them with a notification that the child has been removed from the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and an explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child.
This bill, the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, would require, beginning January 1, 2027, each county to review publicly available data comparing the statewide national average rate of placing children with relatives in the prior year for comparison with the countys placement rate during the same period, and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, as specified. The bill would require that, if the countys placement rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to consult with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its placement rate, as specified. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
The bill would also require, each year that a county has a placement rate that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, the board of supervisors for that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board. The bill would authorize, if a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee assigned to hear child welfare matters, the topic to be placed on the agenda for discussion by the committee rather than the full board. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments and county boards of supervisors, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations.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 requires a county social worker to investigate the circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace officer under specified circumstances. Existing law requires the social worker to conduct an investigation, within 30 days of the childs removal, to identify and locate adult relatives of the child, as specified, and to provide them with a notification that the child has been removed from the custody of the childs parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and an explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child.
This bill, the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, would require, beginning January 1, 2027, each county to review publicly available data comparing the statewide national average rate of placing children with relatives in the prior year for comparison with the countys placement rate during the same period, and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, as specified. The bill would require that, if the countys placement rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to consult with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its placement rate, as specified.
The bill would also require, each year that a county has a placement rate that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 placement preferences, the board of supervisors for that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board. The bill would authorize, if a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee assigned to hear child welfare matters, the topic to be placed on the agenda for discussion by the committee rather than the full board. By increasing the duties of county welfare departments and county boards of supervisors, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make related findings and declarations.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(a)This act shall be known as the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
(b)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Among ethnic groups in California, Black children and Native American children become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21 percent of foster children are Black.
(2)Black children comprise about 5 percent of the states children. Native American children comprise less than 1 percent of all California children but exceed 1 percent of children in foster care.
(3)The Legislature recognizes the Legislative Analysts Office has documented as follows:
(A)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.
(B)In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of Californias 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 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children).
(C)Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.
(c)(1)An effective way to address the racially discriminatory impact of Californias foster care is to promote strategies that result in children being placed with family members rather than strangers.
(2)The Legislature acknowledges that Casey Family Programs has stated:
(A)Numerous studies have established the benefits of kinship care. The research demonstrates that compared to non-kin foster care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency. Despite these findings, child protection agencies place only about one-third of children in formal out-of-home care with kin, and the rates vary significantly among jurisdictions across the country.
(B)A strong cultural identity can lead to greater self-esteem, higher education levels, increase in coping abilities, and decreased levels of loneliness and depression for youth in foster care.
(C)States other than California have placed a higher priority on placing children with family. For example, Tennessee requires the approval of a Kinship Exception Request form to before a child is placed in a non-kin home. In New York, if a child is not placed with relatives or kin, there is a secondary review by a person in a supervisory or managerial role to confirm efforts were taken to find an appropriate and available kinship placement.
(D)One recommendation to improve family placement is to routinely review, aggregate, and disseminate data and evidence about kinship families to fully understand how to continuously support these valued caregivers. It is important to consistently review data to understand what can be changed to better support kinship families.
SEC. 2.Section 309 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:309.(a)Upon delivery to the social worker of a child who has been taken into temporary custody under this article, the social worker shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the child and the facts surrounding the childs being taken into custody and attempt to maintain the child with the childs family through the provision of services. The social worker shall immediately release the child to the custody of the childs parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative, regardless of the parents, guardians, Indian custodians, or relatives immigration status, unless one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1)The child has no parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative willing to provide care for the child.
(2)Continued detention of the child is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected in their home or the home of a relative.
(3)If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the child has been physically removed from the custody of a parent or parents or an Indian custodian, continued detention of the child continues to be necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected if maintained in the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian.
(4)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or Indian custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(5)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(6)The parent or other person having lawful custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and did not reclaim the child within the 14-day period specified in subdivision (g) of that section.
(b)In any case in which there is reasonable cause for believing that a child who is under the care of a physician and surgeon or a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility, cannot be immediately moved, and is a person described in Section 300, the child shall be deemed to have been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the social worker for the purposes of this chapter while the child is at the office of the physician and surgeon or the medical facility.
(c)If the child is not released to their parent or guardian, the child shall be deemed detained for purposes of this chapter.
(d)(1)If a relative, as defined in Section 319, an extended family member of an Indian child, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, is available and requests emergency placement of the child pending the detention hearing, or after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, the county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relatives or nonrelative extended family members suitability for emergency placement pursuant to Section 361.4.
(2)Upon completion of the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4, the child may be placed in the home on an emergency basis. Following the emergency placement of the child, the county welfare department shall evaluate and approve or deny the home pursuant to Section 16519.5. If the home in which the Indian child is placed is licensed or approved by the childs tribe, the provisions of Section 16519.5 do not apply for further approval. The county shall require the relative or nonrelative extended family member to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate the home environment assessment no later than five business days after the placement.
(3)If the sole issue preventing an emergency placement of a child with a relative or nonrelative extended family member is a lack of resources, including, but not limited to, physical items such as cribs and car seats, the agency shall use reasonable efforts to assist the relative or nonrelative extended family member in obtaining the necessary items within existing available resources. The department shall work with counties and stakeholders to issue guidance regarding reasonable efforts requirements.
(e)(1)If the child is removed, the social worker shall 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, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 319, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, any extended family members, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.). As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. The social worker shall provide to all adult relatives who are located, except when that relatives history of family or domestic violence makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, of all the following information:
(A)The child has been removed from the custody of their parent or parents, guardian or guardians, or Indian custodian.
(B)An explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child and support for the childs family, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond. The notice shall provide information about providing care for the child while the family receives reunification services with the goal of returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a resource family, and additional services and support that are available in out-of-home placements, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the option of obtaining approval for placement through the tribes license or approval procedure. The notice shall also include information regarding the Kin-GAP Program (Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9), the CalWORKs program for approved relative caregivers (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9), adoption, and adoption assistance (Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section 16115) of Part 4 of Division 9), as well as other options for contact with the child, including, but not limited to, visitation. The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California and other interested stakeholders, shall develop the written notice.
(2)The social worker shall also provide the adult relatives notified pursuant to paragraph (1) with a relative information form to provide information to the social worker and the court regarding the needs of the child. The form shall include a provision whereby the relative may request the permission of the court to address the court, if the relative so chooses. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the State Department of Social Services and the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall develop the form.
(3)(A)The social worker shall use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parent, pursuant to paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, asking the child in an age-appropriate manner about any parent, alleged parent, and relatives important to the child, consistent with the childs best interest, and obtaining information regarding the location of the childs parents, alleged parents, and adult relatives. Each county welfare department shall do all of the following:
(i)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 the county welfare department shall provide parents and relatives with the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2).
(ii)Notify the State Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42 and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented through training, memoranda, manuals, or comparable documents. If a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42, the county welfare department shall provide a copy to the State Department of Social Services of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document, that are in existence prior to January 1, 2022.
(iii)Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, with the countys average rate of placement, as follows:
(I)By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
(II)If the countys average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
(B)The due diligence required under subparagraph (A) shall include family finding. For purposes of this section, family finding means 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 by Section 224.1, family finding also includes contacting the Indian childs tribe to identify relatives and kin.
SEC. 3.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)This act shall be known as the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
(b)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Among ethnic groups in California, Black children and Native American children become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21 percent of foster children are Black.
(2)Black children comprise about 5 percent of the states children. Native American children comprise less than 1 percent of all California children but exceed 1 percent of children in foster care.
(3)The Legislature recognizes the Legislative Analysts Office has documented as follows:
(A)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.
(B)In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of Californias 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 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children).
(C)Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.
(c)(1)An effective way to address the racially discriminatory impact of Californias foster care is to promote strategies that result in children being placed with family members rather than strangers.
(2)The Legislature acknowledges that Casey Family Programs has stated:
(A)Numerous studies have established the benefits of kinship care. The research demonstrates that compared to non-kin foster care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency. Despite these findings, child protection agencies place only about one-third of children in formal out-of-home care with kin, and the rates vary significantly among jurisdictions across the country.
(B)A strong cultural identity can lead to greater self-esteem, higher education levels, increase in coping abilities, and decreased levels of loneliness and depression for youth in foster care.
(C)States other than California have placed a higher priority on placing children with family. For example, Tennessee requires the approval of a Kinship Exception Request form to before a child is placed in a non-kin home. In New York, if a child is not placed with relatives or kin, there is a secondary review by a person in a supervisory or managerial role to confirm efforts were taken to find an appropriate and available kinship placement.
(D)One recommendation to improve family placement is to routinely review, aggregate, and disseminate data and evidence about kinship families to fully understand how to continuously support these valued caregivers. It is important to consistently review data to understand what can be changed to better support kinship families.
SEC. 2.Section 309 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:309.(a)Upon delivery to the social worker of a child who has been taken into temporary custody under this article, the social worker shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the child and the facts surrounding the childs being taken into custody and attempt to maintain the child with the childs family through the provision of services. The social worker shall immediately release the child to the custody of the childs parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative, regardless of the parents, guardians, Indian custodians, or relatives immigration status, unless one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1)The child has no parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative willing to provide care for the child.
(2)Continued detention of the child is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected in their home or the home of a relative.
(3)If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the child has been physically removed from the custody of a parent or parents or an Indian custodian, continued detention of the child continues to be necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected if maintained in the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian.
(4)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or Indian custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(5)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(6)The parent or other person having lawful custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and did not reclaim the child within the 14-day period specified in subdivision (g) of that section.
(b)In any case in which there is reasonable cause for believing that a child who is under the care of a physician and surgeon or a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility, cannot be immediately moved, and is a person described in Section 300, the child shall be deemed to have been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the social worker for the purposes of this chapter while the child is at the office of the physician and surgeon or the medical facility.
(c)If the child is not released to their parent or guardian, the child shall be deemed detained for purposes of this chapter.
(d)(1)If a relative, as defined in Section 319, an extended family member of an Indian child, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, is available and requests emergency placement of the child pending the detention hearing, or after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, the county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relatives or nonrelative extended family members suitability for emergency placement pursuant to Section 361.4.
(2)Upon completion of the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4, the child may be placed in the home on an emergency basis. Following the emergency placement of the child, the county welfare department shall evaluate and approve or deny the home pursuant to Section 16519.5. If the home in which the Indian child is placed is licensed or approved by the childs tribe, the provisions of Section 16519.5 do not apply for further approval. The county shall require the relative or nonrelative extended family member to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate the home environment assessment no later than five business days after the placement.
(3)If the sole issue preventing an emergency placement of a child with a relative or nonrelative extended family member is a lack of resources, including, but not limited to, physical items such as cribs and car seats, the agency shall use reasonable efforts to assist the relative or nonrelative extended family member in obtaining the necessary items within existing available resources. The department shall work with counties and stakeholders to issue guidance regarding reasonable efforts requirements.
(e)(1)If the child is removed, the social worker shall 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, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 319, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, any extended family members, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.). As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. The social worker shall provide to all adult relatives who are located, except when that relatives history of family or domestic violence makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, of all the following information:
(A)The child has been removed from the custody of their parent or parents, guardian or guardians, or Indian custodian.
(B)An explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child and support for the childs family, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond. The notice shall provide information about providing care for the child while the family receives reunification services with the goal of returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a resource family, and additional services and support that are available in out-of-home placements, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the option of obtaining approval for placement through the tribes license or approval procedure. The notice shall also include information regarding the Kin-GAP Program (Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9), the CalWORKs program for approved relative caregivers (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9), adoption, and adoption assistance (Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section 16115) of Part 4 of Division 9), as well as other options for contact with the child, including, but not limited to, visitation. The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California and other interested stakeholders, shall develop the written notice.
(2)The social worker shall also provide the adult relatives notified pursuant to paragraph (1) with a relative information form to provide information to the social worker and the court regarding the needs of the child. The form shall include a provision whereby the relative may request the permission of the court to address the court, if the relative so chooses. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the State Department of Social Services and the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall develop the form.
(3)(A)The social worker shall use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parent, pursuant to paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, asking the child in an age-appropriate manner about any parent, alleged parent, and relatives important to the child, consistent with the childs best interest, and obtaining information regarding the location of the childs parents, alleged parents, and adult relatives. Each county welfare department shall do all of the following:
(i)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 the county welfare department shall provide parents and relatives with the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2).
(ii)Notify the State Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42 and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented through training, memoranda, manuals, or comparable documents. If a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42, the county welfare department shall provide a copy to the State Department of Social Services of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document, that are in existence prior to January 1, 2022.
(iii)Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, with the countys average rate of placement, as follows:
(I)By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
(II)If the countys average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
(B)The due diligence required under subparagraph (A) shall include family finding. For purposes of this section, family finding means 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 by Section 224.1, family finding also includes contacting the Indian childs tribe to identify relatives and kin.
SEC. 3.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)This act shall be known as the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
(b)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Among ethnic groups in California, Black children and Native American children become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21 percent of foster children are Black.
(2)Black children comprise about 5 percent of the states children. Native American children comprise less than 1 percent of all California children but exceed 1 percent of children in foster care.
(3)The Legislature recognizes the Legislative Analysts Office has documented as follows:
(A)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.
(B)In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of Californias 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 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children).
(C)Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.
(c)(1)An effective way to address the racially discriminatory impact of Californias foster care is to promote strategies that result in children being placed with family members rather than strangers.
(2)The Legislature acknowledges that Casey Family Programs has stated:
(A)Numerous studies have established the benefits of kinship care. The research demonstrates that compared to non-kin foster care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency. Despite these findings, child protection agencies place only about one-third of children in formal out-of-home care with kin, and the rates vary significantly among jurisdictions across the country.
(B)A strong cultural identity can lead to greater self-esteem, higher education levels, increase in coping abilities, and decreased levels of loneliness and depression for youth in foster care.
(C)States other than California have placed a higher priority on placing children with family. For example, Tennessee requires the approval of a Kinship Exception Request form to before a child is placed in a non-kin home. In New York, if a child is not placed with relatives or kin, there is a secondary review by a person in a supervisory or managerial role to confirm efforts were taken to find an appropriate and available kinship placement.
(D)One recommendation to improve family placement is to routinely review, aggregate, and disseminate data and evidence about kinship families to fully understand how to continuously support these valued caregivers. It is important to consistently review data to understand what can be changed to better support kinship families.
SEC. 2.Section 309 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:309.(a)Upon delivery to the social worker of a child who has been taken into temporary custody under this article, the social worker shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the child and the facts surrounding the childs being taken into custody and attempt to maintain the child with the childs family through the provision of services. The social worker shall immediately release the child to the custody of the childs parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative, regardless of the parents, guardians, Indian custodians, or relatives immigration status, unless one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1)The child has no parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative willing to provide care for the child.
(2)Continued detention of the child is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected in their home or the home of a relative.
(3)If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the child has been physically removed from the custody of a parent or parents or an Indian custodian, continued detention of the child continues to be necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected if maintained in the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian.
(4)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or Indian custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(5)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(6)The parent or other person having lawful custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and did not reclaim the child within the 14-day period specified in subdivision (g) of that section.
(b)In any case in which there is reasonable cause for believing that a child who is under the care of a physician and surgeon or a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility, cannot be immediately moved, and is a person described in Section 300, the child shall be deemed to have been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the social worker for the purposes of this chapter while the child is at the office of the physician and surgeon or the medical facility.
(c)If the child is not released to their parent or guardian, the child shall be deemed detained for purposes of this chapter.
(d)(1)If a relative, as defined in Section 319, an extended family member of an Indian child, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, is available and requests emergency placement of the child pending the detention hearing, or after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, the county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relatives or nonrelative extended family members suitability for emergency placement pursuant to Section 361.4.
(2)Upon completion of the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4, the child may be placed in the home on an emergency basis. Following the emergency placement of the child, the county welfare department shall evaluate and approve or deny the home pursuant to Section 16519.5. If the home in which the Indian child is placed is licensed or approved by the childs tribe, the provisions of Section 16519.5 do not apply for further approval. The county shall require the relative or nonrelative extended family member to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate the home environment assessment no later than five business days after the placement.
(3)If the sole issue preventing an emergency placement of a child with a relative or nonrelative extended family member is a lack of resources, including, but not limited to, physical items such as cribs and car seats, the agency shall use reasonable efforts to assist the relative or nonrelative extended family member in obtaining the necessary items within existing available resources. The department shall work with counties and stakeholders to issue guidance regarding reasonable efforts requirements.
(e)(1)If the child is removed, the social worker shall 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, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 319, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, any extended family members, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.). As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. The social worker shall provide to all adult relatives who are located, except when that relatives history of family or domestic violence makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, of all the following information:
(A)The child has been removed from the custody of their parent or parents, guardian or guardians, or Indian custodian.
(B)An explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child and support for the childs family, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond. The notice shall provide information about providing care for the child while the family receives reunification services with the goal of returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a resource family, and additional services and support that are available in out-of-home placements, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the option of obtaining approval for placement through the tribes license or approval procedure. The notice shall also include information regarding the Kin-GAP Program (Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9), the CalWORKs program for approved relative caregivers (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9), adoption, and adoption assistance (Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section 16115) of Part 4 of Division 9), as well as other options for contact with the child, including, but not limited to, visitation. The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California and other interested stakeholders, shall develop the written notice.
(2)The social worker shall also provide the adult relatives notified pursuant to paragraph (1) with a relative information form to provide information to the social worker and the court regarding the needs of the child. The form shall include a provision whereby the relative may request the permission of the court to address the court, if the relative so chooses. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the State Department of Social Services and the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall develop the form.
(3)(A)The social worker shall use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parent, pursuant to paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, asking the child in an age-appropriate manner about any parent, alleged parent, and relatives important to the child, consistent with the childs best interest, and obtaining information regarding the location of the childs parents, alleged parents, and adult relatives. Each county welfare department shall do all of the following:
(i)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 the county welfare department shall provide parents and relatives with the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2).
(ii)Notify the State Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42 and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented through training, memoranda, manuals, or comparable documents. If a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42, the county welfare department shall provide a copy to the State Department of Social Services of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document, that are in existence prior to January 1, 2022.
(iii)Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, with the countys average rate of placement, as follows:
(I)By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
(II)If the countys average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
(B)The due diligence required under subparagraph (A) shall include family finding. For purposes of this section, family finding means 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 by Section 224.1, family finding also includes contacting the Indian childs tribe to identify relatives and kin.
(f)Each year that, pursuant to clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, the board of supervisors of that county shall, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, which discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support, as required by clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, as set forth in Section 10601.2, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented. If a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic may be place on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.SEC. 3.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
(a)This act shall be known as the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
(b)The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(1)Among ethnic groups in California, Black children and Native American children become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21 percent of foster children are Black.
(2)Black children comprise about 5 percent of the states children. Native American children comprise less than 1 percent of all California children but exceed 1 percent of children in foster care.
(3)The Legislature recognizes the Legislative Analysts Office has documented as follows:
(A)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.
(B)In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of Californias 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 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children).
(C)Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.
(c)(1)An effective way to address the racially discriminatory impact of Californias foster care is to promote strategies that result in children being placed with family members rather than strangers.
(2)The Legislature acknowledges that Casey Family Programs has stated:
(A)Numerous studies have established the benefits of kinship care. The research demonstrates that compared to non-kin foster care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency. Despite these findings, child protection agencies place only about one-third of children in formal out-of-home care with kin, and the rates vary significantly among jurisdictions across the country.
(B)A strong cultural identity can lead to greater self-esteem, higher education levels, increase in coping abilities, and decreased levels of loneliness and depression for youth in foster care.
(C)States other than California have placed a higher priority on placing children with family. For example, Tennessee requires the approval of a Kinship Exception Request form to before a child is placed in a non-kin home. In New York, if a child is not placed with relatives or kin, there is a secondary review by a person in a supervisory or managerial role to confirm efforts were taken to find an appropriate and available kinship placement.
(D)One recommendation to improve family placement is to routinely review, aggregate, and disseminate data and evidence about kinship families to fully understand how to continuously support these valued caregivers. It is important to consistently review data to understand what can be changed to better support kinship families.
SEC. 2.Section 309 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:309.(a)Upon delivery to the social worker of a child who has been taken into temporary custody under this article, the social worker shall immediately investigate the circumstances of the child and the facts surrounding the childs being taken into custody and attempt to maintain the child with the childs family through the provision of services. The social worker shall immediately release the child to the custody of the childs parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative, regardless of the parents, guardians, Indian custodians, or relatives immigration status, unless one or more of the following conditions exist:
(1)The child has no parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative willing to provide care for the child.
(2)Continued detention of the child is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the child and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected in their home or the home of a relative.
(3)If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the child has been physically removed from the custody of a parent or parents or an Indian custodian, continued detention of the child continues to be necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child can be protected if maintained in the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian.
(4)There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or Indian custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.
(5)The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court.
(6)The parent or other person having lawful custody of the child voluntarily surrendered physical custody of the child pursuant to Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code and did not reclaim the child within the 14-day period specified in subdivision (g) of that section.
(b)In any case in which there is reasonable cause for believing that a child who is under the care of a physician and surgeon or a hospital, clinic, or other medical facility, cannot be immediately moved, and is a person described in Section 300, the child shall be deemed to have been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the social worker for the purposes of this chapter while the child is at the office of the physician and surgeon or the medical facility.
(c)If the child is not released to their parent or guardian, the child shall be deemed detained for purposes of this chapter.
(d)(1)If a relative, as defined in Section 319, an extended family member of an Indian child, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, is available and requests emergency placement of the child pending the detention hearing, or after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, the county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relatives or nonrelative extended family members suitability for emergency placement pursuant to Section 361.4.
(2)Upon completion of the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4, the child may be placed in the home on an emergency basis. Following the emergency placement of the child, the county welfare department shall evaluate and approve or deny the home pursuant to Section 16519.5. If the home in which the Indian child is placed is licensed or approved by the childs tribe, the provisions of Section 16519.5 do not apply for further approval. The county shall require the relative or nonrelative extended family member to submit an application for approval as a resource family and initiate the home environment assessment no later than five business days after the placement.
(3)If the sole issue preventing an emergency placement of a child with a relative or nonrelative extended family member is a lack of resources, including, but not limited to, physical items such as cribs and car seats, the agency shall use reasonable efforts to assist the relative or nonrelative extended family member in obtaining the necessary items within existing available resources. The department shall work with counties and stakeholders to issue guidance regarding reasonable efforts requirements.
(e)(1)If the child is removed, the social worker shall 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, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (h) of Section 319, including any other adult relatives suggested by the parents, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, any extended family members, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.). As used in this section, sibling means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent. The social worker shall provide to all adult relatives who are located, except when that relatives history of family or domestic violence makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, of all the following information:
(A)The child has been removed from the custody of their parent or parents, guardian or guardians, or Indian custodian.
(B)An explanation of the various options to participate in the care and placement of the child and support for the childs family, including any options that may be lost by failing to respond. The notice shall provide information about providing care for the child while the family receives reunification services with the goal of returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a resource family, and additional services and support that are available in out-of-home placements, and, if it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the option of obtaining approval for placement through the tribes license or approval procedure. The notice shall also include information regarding the Kin-GAP Program (Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9), the CalWORKs program for approved relative caregivers (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9), adoption, and adoption assistance (Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section 16115) of Part 4 of Division 9), as well as other options for contact with the child, including, but not limited to, visitation. The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California and other interested stakeholders, shall develop the written notice.
(2)The social worker shall also provide the adult relatives notified pursuant to paragraph (1) with a relative information form to provide information to the social worker and the court regarding the needs of the child. The form shall include a provision whereby the relative may request the permission of the court to address the court, if the relative so chooses. The Judicial Council, in consultation with the State Department of Social Services and the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall develop the form.
(3)(A)The social worker shall use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives, as well as any parent and alleged parent, pursuant to paragraph (1), including, but not limited to, asking the child in an age-appropriate manner about any parent, alleged parent, and relatives important to the child, consistent with the childs best interest, and obtaining information regarding the location of the childs parents, alleged parents, and adult relatives. Each county welfare department shall do both all of the following:
(i)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 the county welfare department shall provide parents and relatives with the notices required by paragraphs (1) and (2).
(ii)Notify the State Department of Social Services, on or before January 1, 2024, in an email or other correspondence, whether it has adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42 and, generally, whether the practice has been implemented through training, memoranda, manuals, or comparable documents. If a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding described in All-County Letter 18-42, the county welfare department shall provide a copy to the State Department of Social Services of its existing family finding policies and practices, as reflected in memoranda, handbooks, manuals, training manuals, or any other document, that are in existence prior to January 1, 2022.
(iii)Beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, with the countys average rate of placement, as follows:
(I)By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
(II)If the countys average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
(B)The due diligence required under subparagraph (A) shall include family finding. For purposes of this section, family finding means 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 by Section 224.1, family finding also includes contacting the Indian childs tribe to identify relatives and kin.
(f)Each year that, pursuant to clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.) placement preferences, as described in subdivision (b) of Section 361.31, the board of supervisors of that county shall, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, which discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support, as required by clause (iii) of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (e), what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, as set forth in Section 10601.2, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented. If a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic may be place on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.
SEC. 3.To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2025 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 436, Statutes of 2025. |
| Oct 7, 2025 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 24, 2025 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 80. Noes 0. Page 3378.). |
| Sep 12, 2025 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. |
| Sep 11, 2025 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2930.). |
| Sep 9, 2025 | Ordered to special consent calendar. |
| Sep 2, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Aug 29, 2025 | Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading. |
| Aug 29, 2025 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29). |
| Jun 30, 2025 | In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Jun 17, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| May 21, 2025 | Referred to Com. on HUMAN S. |
| May 13, 2025 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 12, 2025 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1508.) |
| Apr 10, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Apr 9, 2025 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 9). |
| Mar 26, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Mar 3, 2025 | Referred to Com. on HUM. S. |
| Feb 13, 2025 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 15. |
| Feb 12, 2025 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2025 | AB 562 Solache Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 11, 2025 | Special Consent AB562 Solache et al. By Smallwood-Cuevas | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Aug 29, 2025 | Do pass as amended | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 30, 2025 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Jun 16, 2025 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Human Services |
Passed |
|
| May 12, 2025 | AB 562 Solache Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Apr 9, 2025 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Mar 25, 2025 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Alliance for Children's Rights | ** Support | |
| California Alliance of Caregivers | ** Support | |
| California Family Resource Association | ** Support | |
| California Youth Connection (co-sponsor) | ** Support | |
| Child Abuse Prevention Center | ** Support | |
| Children Now | ** Support | |
| Children's Advocacy Institute | ** Support | |
| Children'S Law Center Of California | ** Support | |
| City of Long Beach | ** Support | |
| Dependency Legal Services | ** Support | |
| Impact Strategies Professional Development Program | ** Support | |
| John Burton Advocates for Youth | ** Support | |
| Justice2jobs Coalition | ** Support | |
| Morongo Band Of Mission Indians | ** Support | |
| Pale Blue | ** Support | |
| Social Policy Institute | ** Support | |
| The Child Abuse Prevention Center And Its Affiliates Safe Kids California, Prevent Child Abuse California And The California Family Resource Association | ** Support | |
| western center on law & poverty | ** Support | |
| Yurok Tribe | ** Support |
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
CSA1 Bill Id:AB 562
Author:(Solache and Bryan)
As Amended Ver:August 29, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Adds to the requirements for county welfare departments when investigating the names and locations of relatives of a child who has been removed from their home due to abuse or neglect, to include an annual review of data comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives, and mandatory communication with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (Center) if the county's average is less than the statewide average.
Senate Amendments
Strike the requirement, each year that a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, for the board of supervisors of that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
COMMENTS
The Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) was a series of reforms to the child welfare services system that aimed to improve outcomes for foster youth by prioritizing family-based care over group settings, among other changes. As part of this reform, and as established through AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015, the transition away from group homes and toward homelike settings with kin began implementation in 2017. Prior to this implementation, foster youth often spent extended periods in group homes that were designed as long-term placements. Based on documented studies, long-term group home stays result in worse outcomes for youth than family-based care.
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 in the child welfare services system, county social workers are required to identify and locate all relatives or non-relative extended family members (NREFMs) who may serve as caregivers to the youth.
Data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project reveal a wide discrepancy in relative placement rates across counties in California. While the state average is 35%, Los Angeles County, which has one-third of California's foster youth population, has a relative placement rate of 39%. Orange County places 48% of foster youth with relatives, Alameda County stands at 36%, and San Diego County at 37%. Sacramento County, with 28%, is not only lower than the state average, it is also significantly lower than the national average of 35.5%.
This bill would require each county, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives, with the county's average rate of placement.
According to an All County Letter (ACL No. 18-42), distributed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in 2018, 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 congregate settings, 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.
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. As of January 1, 2017, all new relative home placements were required to meet Resource Family Approval (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.
Social workers are required to use due diligence in their efforts to identify, locate, and notify relatives up to the fifth degree of kinship and to include paternal relatives, with the exception of relatives for whom a history of domestic violence has been determined.
Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support. As a result of AB 207, (Committee on Budget), Chapter 573, Statutes of 2022, CDSS contracted with the University of California, Davis to launch the Center to support efforts to keep children and youth connected to their biological and extended families. The Center was designed to 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.
This bill would require, in a county that has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, which as of October 1, 2024, is 35%, the county welfare director to communicate with the Center to identify best practices to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. Additionally, and by no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county would be required to begin communications with the Center, and to communicate with the Center at least three more times on a quarterly basis, which includes email, video conference, or phone call.
Child Welfare Indicators Project. As directed by the Children's Bureau, the California Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR) System was established when the Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act was enacted through AB 636, (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001, and was modeled after the federal CFSR. The C-CFSR was designed to improve outcomes for children in the child welfare system while holding county and state agencies accountable for the outcomes achieved.
Also as part of AB 636, beginning in the 2003-04 fiscal year, CDSS is required to report to the Legislature annually, on progress in meeting the outcome measures developed by the California Health and Human Services Agency. As a result of a partnership with the University of California, Berkeley and CDSS, the California Child Welfare Indicators Project was created to fulfill the requirements of AB 636 to track outcome measures including child maltreatment, allegation, investigation, and substantiation rates along with entry and in-care rates and also provides a point-in-time look at the number of youth in care that can be sorted according to age, race, ethnicity, and length of placement. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project also provides the public with this valuable information.
According to the Author
"Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families."
Arguments in Support
According to co-sponsor, Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI), "[This bill] is inspired by a December 2023 report authored by CAI highlighting the dismal record of Sacramento County's efforts to find family placements for foster children. The report titled No Family for the Holidays in Sacramento, received and continues to receive extensive press coverage throughout the Central Valley, with a Sacramento County grand jury recently highlighting 'that the Board of Supervisors should increase the number of teenagers placed with relatives.'. . . Because the most important thing we can do for abused or neglected children who cannot be returned to their parents is to place them with family, [this bill] is modestly aimed at ensuring that a county's track record of finding family members for foster children is an ongoing topic of conversation at the board of supervisors' level of every county, as it properly should be given our moral responsibility to these children."
Arguments in Opposition
No opposition on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 29, 2025, unknown General Fund cost pressures to fund counties for administration. 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 be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
VOTES:
ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 7-0-0
YES: Lee, Castillo, Calderon, Elhawary, Essayli, Jackson, Celeste Rodriguez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1
YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Solache, Ta
ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0-1
YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
ABS, ABST OR NV: Stefani
UPDATED
VERSION: August 29, 2025
CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0001935
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 562 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 562
Author: Solache (D) and Bryan (D)
Amended: 8/29/25 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 5-0, 6/16/25
AYES: Arreguín, Ochoa Bogh, Becker, Limón, Wahab
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/25 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Foster care: placement: family finding
SOURCE: California Youth Connection, Children’s Advocacy Institute
DIGEST:
This bill creates the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, which requires counties to review statewide average rates of placing children with relatives and take various actions if their county’s numbers are below the statewide average.
ANALYSIS:
Existing Law:
- 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) section 202)
- 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 section 300.2)
- 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 section 16000)
- 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 section 309(e)(1))
- 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:
- 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,
- Notify 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 section 309(e)(3))
- 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 section 309(e)(3)(B))
- 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 section 361.3(a))
- 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 section 319(h)(3))
This Bill:
- Creates the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act and makes legislative findings and declarations about the racial disparities in children in foster care and the benefits of kinship care.
- Provides, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and with the county’s average rate of placement, as follows:
- By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
- If the county’s average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (Center for Excellence) to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives.
- By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the Center for Excellence at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
Comments
According to the author. “Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families.”
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 2024, the state’s child welfare agencies received 417,513 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 46,457 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 17,390 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system.
Children Have Better Outcomes When Placed With Family. Kinship care refers to care of a child by relatives. Research has shown 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. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway[1], 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 that 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.”[2]
The Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support at UC Davis (Center for Excellence). 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 Program and to support implementation through the establishment of the Center for Excellence. CDSS has contracted with University of California, Davis to launch the Center for Excellence 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. The Center for Excellence will provide training and technical assistance for counties and tribes that have opted to participate in the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support program. Specialized trainings 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. The Center for Excellence will also provide training on how to engage children and young people in the family finding process. All trainings will utilize family finding and engagement, and permanency subject matter experts.
Family Placement Rates Vary By County. California’s 58 counties are each unique, with small and large populations, small and large geographic districts, and rural and urban settings. Across these 58 counties, rates of family placement vary. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project[3] provides a comprehensive source of child welfare administrative data. According to the data available on their website, county placement rates, as determined by the percentage of foster children currently placed with relatives or non-relative extended family members at the point in time of January 1, 2025, vary from 10.9% in Mendocino County to 64.7% in Inyo County. The state average is 35.5%, with 16 counties having a family placement rate at or above the state average. This bill would require those counties below the state average to communicate with the Center for Excellence to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives.
Related/Prior Legislation:
AB 3217 (Bryan, 2024) was substantially similar to this bill and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
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 in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
Unknown General Fund cost pressures to fund counties for administration. 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 be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/29/25)
California Youth Connection (co-sponsor)
Children’s Advocacy Institute (co-sponsor)
Alliance for Children's Rights
California Alliance of Caregivers
California Family Resource Association
Child Abuse Prevention Center
Children Now
City of Long Beach
Justice2jobs Coalition
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Pale Blue
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/29/25)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/12/25
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NO VOTE RECORDED: Stefani
Prepared by: Heather Hopkins / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524
9/2/25 17:59:56
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 562 (Solache) - Foster care: placement: family finding
Version: February 12, 2025 | Policy Vote: HUMAN S. 5 - 0 |
Urgency: No | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: August 29, 2025 | Consultant: Agnes Lee |
Bill Summary:
AB 562 would require counties to review average rates of placing foster children with relatives, as specified.
*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********
The following information is revised to reflect amendments
adopted by the committee on August 29, 2025
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown General Fund cost pressures to fund counties for administration. 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 be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
Committee Amendments:
Delete requirements on county boards of supervisors.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
AB 562 (Solache) - Foster care: placement: family finding
Version: | Policy Vote: |
Urgency: | Mandate: |
Hearing Date: | Consultant: |
Bill Summary:
AB 562 would require counties to review average rates of placing foster children with relatives, as specified.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown General Fund cost pressures to fund counties for administration. 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 be obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided.
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. 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.
Current law requires, when a child is removed from their home, 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:
- 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 to provide parents and relatives with specified notices; and,
- 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. If a county welfare department has not adopted one of the suggested practices for family finding, the county welfare department must 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.
The due diligence required above must include “family finding.” Current law 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.
Proposed Law:
Specific provisions of the bill would:
- Require, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county to review publicly available data, as specified, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act placement preferences, as described, with the county’s average rate of placement, as specified.
- Require that if the county’s average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, must communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives.
- Require that in each year that a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act placement preferences, the board of supervisors of that county must, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, as specified.
Related Legislation:
AB 3217 (Bryan, 2024) was similar to this bill. The bill was held on the suspense file in this committee.
-- END --
SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Arreguín, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: | AB 562 | ||
Author: | Solache | ||
Version: | February 12, 2025 | Hearing Date: | June 16, 2025 |
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Heather Hopkins | ||
Subject: Foster care: placement: family finding
SUMMARY
This bill creates the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act, which requires counties to review statewide average rates of placing children with relatives and take various actions if their county’s numbers are below the statewide average.
ABSTRACT
Existing Law:
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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))
- 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:
- 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,
- Notify 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))
- 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))
- 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))
- 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))
This Bill:
- Creates the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
- Makes legislative findings and declarations about the racial disparities in children in foster care and the benefits of kinship care.
- Provides, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, each county shall review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and with the county’s average rate of placement, as follows:
- By October 1, the county shall review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year.
- If the county’s average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, shall communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (Center for Excellence) to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives.
- By no later than December 1 of the year of the review, the county shall begin communications with the center, and shall communicate with the Center for Excellence at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
- Provides that each year that a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, the board of supervisors of that county shall, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, the discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center for Excellence, what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented. If a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic may be placed on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis:
The CDSS estimates ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $19,000 annually statewide for county staff time required for under-performing counties to analyze data and communicate with the Center [for Excellence] regarding best practices, and to prepare for and participate in a county board of supervisors meeting on the issue. Although these are state-mandated costs, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), which 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.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the Bill:
According to the author, “Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families.”
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 2024, the state’s child welfare agencies received 417,513 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 46,457 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 17,390 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.
If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.
Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system, time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.
In some circumstances, existing law allows the court to not provide reunification services at all, and parental rights are terminated without the opportunity for reunification. These circumstances include, but are not limited to, the following examples: when the whereabouts of the parent are unknown; when the parent is suffering from a mental disability, as provided, that renders the parent incapable of utilizing those services; when the parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect; after a finding of sever sexual abuse; when the parent has been convicted of a violent felony, as provided; and in some instances where a prior child of the parent became a dependent of the court and was unable to reunify.
Children Have Better Outcomes When Placed With Family
Kinship care refers to care of a child by relatives. Research has shown 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. According to the Child Welfare Information Gateway[1], 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 that 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.”[2]
The Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support at UC Davis (Center for Excellence)
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 Program and to support implementation through the establishment of the Center for Excellence. CDSS has contracted with University of California, Davis to launch the Center for Excellence 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. The Center for Excellence will provide training and technical assistance for counties and tribes that have opted to participate in the Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support program. Specialized trainings 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. The Center for Excellence will also provide training on how to engage children and young people in the family finding process. All trainings will utilize family finding and engagement, and permanency subject matter experts.
Family Placement Rates Vary By County
California’s 58 counties are each unique, with small and large populations, small and large geographic districts, and rural and urban settings. Across these 58 counties, rates of family placement vary. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project[3] provides a comprehensive source of child welfare administrative data. According to the data available on their website, county placement rates, as determined by the percentage of foster children currently placed with relatives or non-relative extended family members at the point in time of January 1, 2025, vary from 10.9% in Mendocino County to 64.7% in Inyo County. The state average is 35.5%, with 16 counties having a family placement rate at or above the state average. This bill would require those counties below the state average to communicate with the Center for Excellence to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. This bill further provides that each year a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, the board of supervisors of that county shall, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
Related/Prior Legislation:
AB 3217 (Bryan, 2024) was substantially similar to this bill and was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
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 in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 354 (Skinner, Chapter 687, Statutes of 2021) adopted changes to the criminal background check process during the resources family approval 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 resource family approval; 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
This bill seeks to increase family placement rates in the dependency system by requiring counties with below average placement rates to communicate with the Center for Excellence to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives. This bill further provides that each year that a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, the board of supervisors of that county shall, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, the discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center for Excellence, what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented. If a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic may be place on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.
This bill is substantially similar to a bill this committee heard last year – AB 3217. In the analysis for AB 3217 this committee suggested amending the bill to require counties with below average placement rates communicate with Center for Excellence. The analysis also suggested that simply agendizing the item of placement rates with the board of supervisors, without more direction, may not be helpful, writing, “without providing any specific guidance as to what the agendizing of this topic requires, it is unclear if it will have any effect on changing policies to increase family placement rates.” This bill, as in print, currently addresses both of those concerns – requiring counties with below state average placement rates to communicate with the Center for Excellence and providing guidance of the board of supervisors in the agendizing of this topic. With such a wide range of family placement rates among counties, having those with below state average rates take steps to increase that placement rate will likely result in better outcomes for youth and families.
PRIOR VOTES
| |
Assembly Floor: | 78 - 0 |
Assembly Appropriations Committee: | 14 - 0 |
Assembly Human Services Committee: | 7 - 0 |
POSITIONS
Support:
California Youth Connection (CYC) (Co-Sponsor)
Childrens Advocacy Institute (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Children's Rights
California Alliance of Caregivers
Children Now
Justice2jobs Coalition
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Pale Blue
Western Center on Law & Poverty, INC.
Oppose:
None received
-- END --
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
ATR Bill Id:AB 562
Author:(Solache and Bryan)
As Introduced Ver:February 12, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Adds to the requirements for county welfare departments to follow when investigating the names and locations of relatives of a child who has been removed from their home due to abuse or neglect.
Major Provisions
- Requires each county, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) placement preferences, with the county′s average rate of placement, as follows:
- Requires the county, by October 1, to review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year;
- Requires, if the county′s average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (the Center) to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives; and,
- Requires the county, by no later than December 1 of the year of the review, to begin communications with the Center, and communicate with the Center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
- Requires, each year that, pursuant to 1), above, a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to ICWA placement preferences, the board of supervisors of that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
- Specifies the discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center as required by 1), above, what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, as specified, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented.
- Authorizes, if a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic to be placed on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.
COMMENTS
The Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) was a series of reforms to the child welfare services system that aimed to improve outcomes for foster youth by prioritizing family-based care over group settings, among other changes. As part of this reform, and as established through AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015, the transition away from group homes and toward homelike settings with kin began implementation in 2017. Prior to this implementation, foster youth often spent extended periods in group homes that were designed as long-term placements. Based on documented studies, long-term group home stays result in worse outcomes for youth than family-based care.
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 in the child welfare services system, county social workers are required to identify and locate all relatives or NREFMs who may serve as caregivers to the youth.
Data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project reveal a wide discrepancy in relative placement rates across counties in California. While the state average is 35%, Los Angeles County, which has one-third of California′s foster youth population, has a relative placement rate of 39%. Orange County places 48% of foster youth with relatives, Alameda County stands at 36%, and San Diego County at 37%. Sacramento County, with 28%, is not only lower than the state average, it is also significantly lower than the national average of 35.5%.
This bill would require each county, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives, with the county′s average rate of placement.
According to an All County Letter (ACL No. 18-42), distributed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in 2018, 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 congregate settings, 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.
According to studies conducted by Chapin Hall, an independent policy research center at the University of Chicago, children placed with family have better behavioral and mental health outcomes than their peers in traditional foster care. Children in kinship care, which is broadly defined as relatives or close family friends, have fewer placements and school changes and are less likely to run away from home than children in traditional foster care. They are more likely to report that they ″always felt loved″ and have higher satisfaction with kin placement.
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. As of January 1, 2017, all new relative home placements were required to meet Resource Family Approval (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.
Social workers are required to use due diligence in their efforts to identify, locate, and notify relatives up to the fifth degree of kinship and to include paternal relatives, with the exception of relatives for whom a history of domestic violence has been determined.
This bill would require, in a county that has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, which as of October 1, 2024, is 35%, the board of supervisors of that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support. As a result of AB 207, (Committee on Budget), Chapter 573, Statutes of 2022, CDSS contracted with the University of California, Davis to launch the Center to support efforts to keep children and youth connected to their biological and extended families. The Center was designed to 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.
Child Welfare Indicators Project. As directed by the Children′s Bureau, the California Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR) System was established when the Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act was enacted through AB 636, (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001, and was modeled after the federal CFSR. The C-CFSR was designed to improve outcomes for children in the child welfare system while holding county and state agencies accountable for the outcomes achieved.
Also as part of AB 636, beginning in the 2003-04 fiscal year, CDSS is required to report to the Legislature annually, on progress in meeting the outcome measures developed by the California Health and Human Services Agency. As a result of a partnership with the University of California, Berkeley and CDSS, the California Child Welfare Indicators Project was created to fulfill the requirements of AB 636 to track outcome measures including child maltreatment, allegation, investigation, and substantiation rates along with entry and in-care rates and also provides a point-in-time look at the number of youth in care that can be sorted according to age, race, ethnicity, and length of placement. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project also provides the public with this valuable information.
Equity Implications: Research indicates that by improving relative placement rates in California, outcomes for all children and families, and in particular, Black children and families who are overrepresented in the foster care system, will also improve. 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 years of age (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. Because of the disproportionality across all aspects of the child welfare system - not just in foster care - but also child protective services involvement, prioritizing placement of a foster youth with their family members or other responsible adults who are known to the child has been seen as a way to address this issue by ensuring that these vulnerable youth are placed with family when possible.
According to the Author
″Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families.″
Arguments in Support
According to co-sponsor, Children′s Advocacy Institute (CAI), ″[This bill] is inspired by a December 2023 report authored by CAI highlighting the dismal record of Sacramento County′s efforts to find family placements for foster children. The report titled No Family for the Holidays in Sacramento, received and continues to receive extensive press coverage throughout the Central Valley, with a Sacramento County grand jury recently highlighting ′that the Board of Supervisors should increase the number of teenagers placed with relatives.′. . . Because the most important thing we can do for abused or neglected children who cannot be returned to their parents is to place them with family, [this bill] is modestly aimed at ensuring that a county′s track record of finding family members for foster children is an ongoing topic of conversation at the board of supervisors′ level of every county, as it properly should be given our moral responsibility to these children.″
Arguments in Opposition
None on file.
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on April 9, 2025, CDSS estimates ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $19,000 annually statewide for county staff time required for under-performing counties to analyze data and communicate with the Center regarding best practices, and to prepare for and participate in a county board of supervisors meeting on the issue. Although these are state-mandated costs, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), which 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.
VOTES
ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 7-0-0
YES: Lee, Castillo, Calderon, Elhawary, Essayli, Jackson, Celeste Rodriguez
ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1
YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Solache, Ta
ABS, ABST OR NV: Pellerin
UPDATED
VERSION: February 12, 2025
CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0000230
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Buffy Wicks, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 562
Author:(Solache and Bryan) – As Introduced Ver:February 12, 2025
Policy Committee: | Human Services | Vote: | 7 - 0 |
|
| ||
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires each county to annually review data comparing the statewide average rate of foster youth placed with relatives with the county’s placement rate. If a county’s placement rate is less than the statewide average, this bill requires the county to identify best practices and requires the county board of supervisors to include the topic on the agenda of a noticed meeting of the full board.
Specifically, this bill:
- Requires each county, beginning January 1, 2027, to annually review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) placement preferences, with the county’s placement rate during the same period, as specified.
- If the county’s relative placement rate is less than the statewide average, requires the county welfare director, by December 1 of the year of the review, to communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (the Center) to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives, as specified. For this purpose, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
- In each year a county’s placement rate is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, placement rate according to ICWA, requires the county board of supervisors to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) estimates ongoing General Fund administrative costs of approximately $19,000 annually statewide for county staff time required for under-performing counties to analyze data and communicate with the Center regarding best practices, and to prepare for and participate in a county board of supervisors meeting on the issue. Although these are state-mandated costs, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), which 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.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose. According to the author:
Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families.
- Background. The child welfare services system aims to preserve familial ties whenever possible. However, in instances when a youth is removed from the custody of their parents and placed in the child welfare services system, county social workers are required to use due diligence in their efforts to locate any relatives or non-relative extended family members who may serve as caregivers to the youth.
Data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project reveals a wide discrepancy in relative placement rates across counties in California. While the state average is 34%, Los Angeles County, which has one-third of California’s foster youth population, has a relative placement rate of 40%. Orange County’s relative placement rate is 47%, Alameda County stands at 34%, and San Diego County at 30%. Sacramento County, at 22%, has the lowest placement rate with relatives among all counties and its rate is also significantly lower than the national average of 35.5%.
Research indicates that, by improving relative placement rates in California, outcomes for all children and families, and in particular, Black children and families who are overrepresented in the foster care system, will also improve.
- Prior Legislation. AB 3217 (Bryan), of the 2023-24 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill. AB 3217 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file.
Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
Date of Hearing: March 25, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Alex Lee, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 562 (
Author:Solache) – As Introduced Ver:February 12, 2025
SUBJECT: Foster care: placement: family finding
SUMMARY: Adds to the requirements for county welfare departments to follow when investigating the names and locations of relatives of a child who has been removed from their home due to abuse or neglect. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires each county, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives and, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) placement preferences, with the county’s average rate of placement, as follows:
- Requires the county, by October 1, to review data for a one-year period ending July 1 of the prior calendar year;
- Requires, if the county’s average rate is less than the statewide average, the county welfare director, or their designee, to communicate with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support (the Center) to identify best practices that may be adopted by the county to improve its average rate of placing children with relatives; and,
- Requires the county, by no later than December 1 of the year of the review, to begin communications with the Center, and communicate with the Center at least three more times on a quarterly basis. For purposes of this requirement, communication includes email, video conference, or phone call.
- Requires, each year that, pursuant to 1) above, a county has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, or, in the case of Indian children, the statewide average rate of placing children according to ICWA placement preferences, the board of supervisors of that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
- Specifies the discussion may include whether the county welfare director, or their designee, has communicated with the Center as required by 1) b) above, what, if any, actions the county is taking in response to increase placements with relative caregivers, whether those actions will be included in a county self-assessment and county system improvement plan, as specified, and when those actions, if any, will be implemented.
- Authorizes, if a board of supervisors has a social services committee or similar committee that is assigned to hear child welfare-related matters, the topic to be placed on the agenda for discussion by that committee rather than the full board.
- States this act shall be known as the Justice through Placing Foster Children with Families Act.
- Makes the following findings and declarations:
- Among ethnic groups in California, Black children and Native American children become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21% of foster children are Black;
- Black children comprise about 5% of the state’s children. Native American children comprise less than 1% of all California children but exceed 1% of children in foster care;
- The Legislature recognizes the Legislative Analyst’s Office has documented as follows:
- “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 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children).”
- “Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.”
- An effective way to address the racially discriminatory impact of California’s foster care is to promote strategies that result in children being placed with family members rather than strangers; and,
- The Legislature acknowledges that Casey Family Programs has stated:
- “Numerous studies have established the benefits of kinship care. The research demonstrates that compared to non-kin foster care, kinship care yields greater placement stability, lower rates of re-abuse, better behavioral health, and a higher likelihood of permanency. Despite these findings, child protection agencies place only about one-third of children in formal out-of-home care with kin, and the rates vary significantly among jurisdictions across the country.”
- A strong cultural identity can lead to greater self-esteem, higher education levels, increase in coping abilities, and decreased levels of loneliness and depression for youth in foster care.
- States other than California have placed a higher priority on placing children with family. For example, Tennessee requires the approval of a Kinship Exception Request form to before a child is placed in a non-kin home. In New York, if a child is not placed with relatives or kin, there is a secondary review by a person in a supervisory or managerial role to confirm efforts were taken to find an appropriate and available kinship placement.
- “One recommendation to improve family placement is to ‘routinely review, aggregate, and disseminate data and evidence about kinship families to fully understand how to continuously support these valued caregivers. It is important to consistently review data to understand what can be changed to better support kinship families.”
EXISTING LAW:
State law:
- 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)
- 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)
- Requires the social worker, if the child is removed, to conduct, within 30 days, an investigation in order to identify and locate all grandparents, parents of a sibling of the child, 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 the child is an Indian child, any extended family members, as defined in ICWA. Requires the social worker to provide to all adult relatives who are located, except when that relative’s history of family or domestic violence makes notification inappropriate, within 30 days of removal of the child, written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, that the child has been removed and various options to participate in the care and placement of the child, among other information. (WIC § 309(e))
- Requires the social worker to use due diligence in investigating the names and locations of the relatives and requires each county to 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. (WIC § 309(e)(3)(A))
- Specifies due diligence shall include “family finding,” which means 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, “family finding” also includes contacting the Indian child’s tribe to identify relatives and kin. (WIC § 309(e)(3)(B))
- 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 parents. (WIC § 361.3(a))
- 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))
- Establishes the Center 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. (WIC §§ 16546-16549)
Federal law:
- Establishes ICWA, which provides guidance to states regarding the jurisdictional requirements, proceedings of tribal courts, and custody proceedings involving the removal of Indian children from their parents. (25 United States Code [U.S.C.] §§ 1901 et seq.)
- Defines an “Indian child” to mean any unmarried person who is under 18 years of age and is either a member of an Indian tribe or is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.)
- Establishes the federal foster care program, authorized by Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, to allow states to provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children who meet certain eligibility requirements until they are safely returned home, placed permanently with adoptive families, or placed in other planned, permanent living arrangements. (42 U.S.C. § 471(a)(2))
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.
COMMENTS:
Background: The Continuum of Care Reform (CCR) was a series of reforms to the child welfare services system that aimed to improve outcomes for foster youth by prioritizing family-based care over group settings, among other changes. As part of this reform, and as established through AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015, the transition away from group homes and toward homelike settings with kin began implementation in 2017. Prior to this implementation, foster youth often spent extended periods in group homes that were designed as long-term placements. Based on documented studies, long-term group home stays result in worse outcomes for youth than family-based care.
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 in the child welfare services system, county social workers are required to identify and locate all relatives or NREFMs who may serve as caregivers to the youth.
Data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project reveal a wide discrepancy in relative placement rates across counties in California. While the state average is 35%, Los Angeles County, which has one-third of California’s foster youth population, has a relative placement rate of 39%. Orange County places 48% of foster youth with relatives, Alameda County stands at 36%, and San Diego County at 37%. Sacramento County, with 28%, is not only lower than the state average, it is also significantly lower than the national average of 35.5%.
This bill would require each county, beginning January 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, to review publicly available data, including data from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project, comparing the statewide average rate of placing children with relatives, with the county’s average rate of placement.
According to an All County Letter (ACL No. 18-42), distributed by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in 2018, 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 congregate settings, 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.
According to studies conducted by Chapin Hall, an independent policy research center at the University of Chicago, children placed with family have better behavioral and mental health outcomes than their peers in traditional foster care. Children in kinship care, which is broadly defined as relatives or close family friends, have fewer placements and school changes and are less likely to run away from home than children in traditional foster care. They are more likely to report that they “always felt loved” and have higher satisfaction with kin placement.
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. As of January 1, 2017, all new relative home placements were required to meet Resource Family Approval (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.
Social workers are required to use due diligence in their efforts to identify, locate, and notify relatives up to the fifth degree of kinship and to include paternal relatives, with the exception of relatives for whom a history of domestic violence has been determined.
This bill would require, in a county that has a rate of placing children with relatives that is less than the statewide average, which as of October 1, 2024, is 35%, the board of supervisors of that county to, at least once, include the topic for discussion on the agenda of a regularly noticed meeting of the full board.
Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support. As a result of AB 207, (Committee on Budget), Chapter 573, Statutes of 2022, CDSS contracted with the University of California, Davis to launch the Center to support efforts to keep children and youth connected to their biological and extended families. The Center was designed to 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.
Child Welfare Indicators Project. As directed by the Children’s Bureau, the California Child and Family Services Review (C-CFSR) System was established when the Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act was enacted through AB 636, (Steinberg), Chapter 678, Statutes of 2001, and was modeled after the federal CFSR. The C-CFSR was designed to improve outcomes for children in the child welfare system while holding county and state agencies accountable for the outcomes achieved.
Also as part of AB 636, beginning in the 2003-04 fiscal year, CDSS is required to report to the Legislature annually, on progress in meeting the outcome measures developed by the California Health and Human Services Agency. As a result of a partnership with the University of California, Berkeley and CDSS, the California Child Welfare Indicators Project was created to fulfill the requirements of AB 636 to track outcome measures including child maltreatment, allegation, investigation, and substantiation rates along with entry and in-care rates and also provides a point-in-time look at the number of youth in care that can be sorted according to age, race, ethnicity, and length of placement. The California Child Welfare Indicators Project also provides the public with this valuable information.
Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “Children in the foster system deserve our best efforts to ensure safety, placement stability, and to keep families together when possible. In light of our unique moral responsibility to our foster children, one of the best things we can do for them is to connect and place them with family that is capable of providing a safe and supportive environment. This legislation will help improve outcomes and ease the foster youth placement transition for children and families.”
Equity Implications: Research indicates that by improving relative placement rates in California, outcomes for all children and families, and in particular, Black children and families who are overrepresented in the foster care system, will also improve. 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 years of age (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. Because of the disproportionality across all aspects of the child welfare system - not just in foster care - but also child protective services involvement, prioritizing placement of a foster youth with their family members or other responsible adults who are known to the child has been seen as a way to address this issue by ensuring that these vulnerable youth are placed with family when possible.
RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:
AB 2929 (Juan Carrillo), Chapter 845, Statutes of 2024, required 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.
AB 3217 (Bryan) of 2024, was substantially similar to this bill. AB 3217 was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file.
AB 448 (Juan Carrillo) of 2023, would have required a social worker and/or probation officer to immediately conduct, but no later than 30 days after the child had 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 would have also added requirements for social workers and probation officers to document their efforts and results to locate any relatives or kin who could provide family support or possible placement of the child or nonminor dependent. AB 448 was vetoed by Governor Newsom due to cost.
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 also required counties to submit a plan to CDSS as a condition of receiving funding for these purposes. AB 2579 was held on Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.
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. SB 1091 was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee but the hearing was canceled at the request of the Author.
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
California Youth Connection (CYC) (Co-Sponsor)
Childrens Advocacy Institute (Co-Sponsor)
Alliance for Children's Rights
California Alliance of Caregivers
California Family Resource Association
Child Abuse Prevention Center and Its Affiliates Safe Kids California, Prevent Child Abuse California and The California Family Resource Association
Children Now
Children's Law Center of California
Dependency Legal Services
Impact Strategies Professional Development Program
John Burton Advocates for Youth
Justice2Jobs Coalition
Pale Blue
Social Policy Institute
Yurok Tribe
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
Discussed in Hearing
50SEC
Assembly Floor
2MIN
Assembly Floor
6MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services
4MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Human Services
Bill Co-Author(s):