Bill Text: CA AB2752 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended

California Assembly Bill 2752

Bill Title: Juvenile court: visitation.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Engrossed) 2024-08-15 - In committee: Held under submission. [AB2752 Detail]

Download: California-2023-AB2752-Amended.html

Amended IN Senate June 27, 2024

Amended IN Assembly April 30, 2024

Amended IN Assembly April 10, 2024

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill

No. 2752

Introduced by Assembly Member Calderon

February 15, 2024

An act to amend Sections 319, 362.1, 364, 366.21, 366.22, and 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 2752, as amended, Calderon. Juvenile court: visitation.

Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law establishes procedures for an initial petition hearing by the juvenile court if a child is being taken into temporary custody, and requires the court to review the status of every dependent child in foster care no less frequently than once every 6 months Existing law requires any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child, but prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. Existing law also requires the court to continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending status hearings unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.

This bill would remove the above-described prohibition on visitations that jeopardize the safety of a child. The bill would, during the initial petition hearing, require the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian that sets forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time and specifies whether the visitation shall be supervised. This bill would, with any order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services and during subsequent review hearings, require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would prohibit a determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial serving as the sole basis for denying unsupervised visitation. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. The bill would define unsupervised visitation for these purposes. The bill would require a court, if the court orders supervised visitation, to specify the factual basis for its order and to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety. The bill would also require the county child welfare agency or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits.

Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a review hearing.

This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare.

By increasing the duties of counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

Section 319 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

319.

(a) At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the child’s parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the child’s parents or guardians, the child’s Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian child’s tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350.

(b) The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parent’s, guardian’s, or Indian custodian’s physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the child’s parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following:

(1) A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(2) The steps taken to provide notice to the child’s parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section.

(3) If the child’s parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director.

(4) The residence and the domicile of the Indian child.

(5) If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village.

(6) The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians.

(7) A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody.

(8) If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribe’s jurisdiction.

(9) A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.

(10) The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration.

(c) (1) The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parent’s or guardian’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist:

(A) There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parent’s or guardian’s physical custody.

(B) There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.

(D) The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home.

(2) (A) The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following:

(i) A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the child’s perspective, and the child’s response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal.

(ii) The relationship between the child and any siblings.

(iii) The relationship between the child and other members of the household.

(iv) Any disruption to the child’s schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and, in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the child’s connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community.

(B) If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following:

(i) The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on.

(ii) Its determination regarding the child’s placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives.

(iii) Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal.

(C) Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives.

(d) If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding.

(e) (1) If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parent’s or guardian’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody.

(2) If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following:

(A) Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm.

(B) The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe.

(f) (1) The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social worker’s report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child.

(2) If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358.

(3) If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.

(4) In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.

(g) If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social worker’s report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the child’s welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be vested with the county child welfare department pending the hearing held pursuant to Section 355 or further order of the court, and order services to be provided as soon as possible to reunify the child and their family, if appropriate.

(h) (1) (A) If the child is not released from custody, the court may order the temporary placement of the child in any of the following for a period not to exceed 15 judicial days:

(i) The home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), or a nonrelative extended family member, as defined in Section 362.7, that has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4.

(ii) The approved home of a resource family, as described in Section 16519.5, or a home licensed or approved by the Indian child’s tribe.

(iii) An emergency shelter or other suitable licensed place.

(iv) A place exempt from licensure designated by the juvenile court.

(B) A youth homelessness prevention center licensed by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1502.35 of the Health and Safety Code shall not be a placement option pursuant to this section.

(C) If the court knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, the Indian child shall be detained in a home that complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), unless the court finds good cause exists pursuant to Section 361.31 not to follow the placement preferences. If the court finds good cause not to follow the placement preferences for detention, this finding does not affect the requirement that a diligent search be made for a subsequent placement within the placement preferences.

(2) Relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child. As used in this section, “relative” means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of these persons, even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.

(3) When placing in the home of a relative, an extended family member, as defined in Section 224.1 and Section 1903 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, or nonrelative extended family member, the court shall consider the recommendations of the social worker based on the assessment pursuant to Section 361.4 of the home of the relative, extended family member, or nonrelative extended family member, including the results of a criminal records check and prior child abuse allegations, if any, before ordering that the child be placed with a relative or nonrelative extended family member. The court may authorize the placement of a child on a temporary basis in the home of a relative, regardless of the status of any criminal record exemption or resource family approval, if the court finds that the placement does not pose a risk to the health and safety of the child. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the social worker the names, residences, and any known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. The social worker shall initiate the assessment pursuant to Section 361.3 of any relative to be considered for continuing placement.

(i) In the case of an Indian child, any order detaining the child pursuant to this section shall be considered an emergency removal within the meaning of Section 1922 of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The emergency proceeding shall terminate if the child is returned to the custody of the parent, parents, or Indian custodian, the child has been transferred to the custody and jurisdiction of the child’s tribe, or the agency or another party to the proceeding recommends that the child be removed from the physical custody of their parent or parents or Indian custodian pursuant to Section 361 or 361.2.

(j) (1) At the initial hearing upon the petition filed in accordance with subdivision (c) of Rule 5.520 of the California Rules of Court or anytime thereafter up until the time that the minor is adjudged a dependent child of the court or a finding is made dismissing the petition, the court may temporarily limit the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child and temporarily appoint a responsible adult to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child if all of the following conditions are found:

(A) The parent or guardian is unavailable, unable, or unwilling to exercise educational or developmental services rights for the child.

(B) The county placing agency has made diligent efforts to locate and secure the participation of the parent or guardian in educational or developmental services decisionmaking.

(C) The child’s educational and developmental services needs cannot be met without the temporary appointment of a responsible adult.

(2) If the court limits the parent’s educational rights under this subdivision, the court shall determine whether there is a responsible adult who is a relative, nonrelative extended family member, or other adult known to the child and who is available and willing to serve as the child’s educational representative before appointing an educational representative or surrogate who is not known to the child.

(3) If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make educational decisions for the child and the appointment of a surrogate parent, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 56050 of the Education Code, is not warranted, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make educational decisions for the child. If the child is receiving services from a regional center, the provision of any developmental services related to the court’s decision shall be consistent with the child’s individual program plan and pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing with Section 4500)). If the court cannot identify a responsible adult to make developmental services decisions for the child, the court may, with the input of any interested person, make developmental services decisions for the child. If the court makes educational or developmental services decisions for the child, the court shall also issue appropriate orders to ensure that every effort is made to identify a responsible adult to make future educational or developmental services decisions for the child.

(4) A temporary appointment of a responsible adult and temporary limitation on the right of the parent or guardian to make educational or developmental services decisions for the child shall be specifically addressed in the court order. An order made under this section shall expire at the conclusion of the hearing held pursuant to Section 361 or upon dismissal of the petition. Upon the entering of disposition orders, additional needed limitation on the parent’s or guardian’s educational or developmental services rights shall be addressed pursuant to Section 361.

(5) This section does not remove the obligation to appoint surrogate parents for students with disabilities who are without parental representation in special education procedures, as required by state and federal law, including Section 1415(b)(2) of Title 20 of the United States Code, Section 56050 of the Education Code, Section 7579.5 of the Government Code, and Rule 5.650 of the California Rules of Court.

(6) If the court appoints a developmental services decisionmaker pursuant to this section, the developmental services decisionmaker shall have the authority to access the child’s information and records pursuant to subdivision (u) of Section 4514 and paragraph (23) of subdivision (a) of Section 5328, and to act on the child’s behalf for the purposes of the individual program plan process pursuant to Sections 4646, 4646.5, and 4648 and the fair hearing process pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4700) of Division 4.5, and as set forth in the court order.

(k) For a placement made on or after October 1, 2021, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a short-term residential therapeutic program shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.

(l) For a placement made on or after July 1, 2022, each temporary placement of the child pursuant to subdivision (h) in a community treatment facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 4096 and be reviewed by the court pursuant to Section 361.22.

(m) (1) At the initial petition hearing, the court shall make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or guardian. The order shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, and shall specify whether the visitation shall be supervised pending the disposition hearing pursuant to Section 358.

(2) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(3) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

SEC. 2.

Section 362.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

362.1.

(a) In order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and the child, and to provide information relevant to deciding if, and when, to return a child to the custody of their parent or guardian, or to encourage or suspend sibling interaction, any order placing a child in foster care, and ordering reunification services, shall provide as follows:

(1) (A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) to (E), inclusive, for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child. Visitation shall be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation ~~is contrary to the child’s welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:~~ would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(i)Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision.
(ii)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.

(B) The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.

(C) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(D) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

(E) To protect the safety of the child, the court may keep the child’s address confidential. If the parent of the child has been convicted of murder in the first degree, as defined in Section 189 of the Penal Code, and the victim of the murder was the other parent of the child, the court shall order visitation between the child and the parent only if that order would be consistent with Section 3030 of the Family Code.

(2) Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 16002, for visitation between the child and any siblings, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.

(3) Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 16002, for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling interaction at each periodic review hearing pursuant to Section 366, and for a requirement that, in order for a suspension to continue, the court shall make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child.

(4) If the child is a teenage parent who has custody of their child and that child is not a dependent of the court pursuant to this chapter, for visitation among the teenage parent, the child’s noncustodial parent, and appropriate family members, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that visitation would be detrimental to the teenage parent.

(b) When reunification services are not ordered pursuant to Section 361.5, the child’s plan for legal permanency shall include consideration of the existence of and the relationship with any sibling pursuant to Section 16002, including their impact on placement and visitation.

(c) As used in this section, “sibling” means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.

(d) As used in this chapter, “unsupervised visitation” means contact between a parent or guardian and one or more children without requiring the presence of a third person.

SEC. 3.

Section 364 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

364.

(a) Every hearing in which an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to Section 300 and in which the child is not removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian shall be continued to a specific future date not to exceed six months after the date of the original dispositional hearing. The continued hearing shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present of the date of the future hearings, of their rights to be present, and to be represented by counsel.

(b) At least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court describing the services offered to the family and the progress made by the family in eliminating the conditions or factors requiring court supervision. The social worker shall also make a recommendation regarding the necessity of continued supervision. A copy of this report shall be furnished to all parties at least 10 calendar days prior to the hearing.

(c) After hearing any evidence presented by the social worker, the parent, the guardian, or the child, the court shall determine whether continued supervision is necessary. The court shall terminate its jurisdiction unless the social worker or their department establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. Failure of the parent or guardian to participate regularly in any court ordered treatment program shall constitute prima facie evidence that the conditions which justified initial assumption of jurisdiction still exist and that continued supervision is necessary.

(d) If the court retains jurisdiction it shall continue the matter to a specified date, not more than six months from the time of the hearing, at which point the court shall again follow the procedure specified in subdivision (c).

(e) In any case in which the court has ordered that a parent or guardian shall retain physical custody of a child subject to supervision by a social worker, and the social worker subsequently receives a report of acts or circumstances which indicate that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the social worker shall commence proceedings under this chapter. If, as a result of the proceedings required, the court finds that the child is a person described in subdivision (a), (d), or (e) of Section 300, the court shall remove the child from the care, custody, and control of the child’s parent or guardian and shall commit the child to the care, custody, and control of the social worker pursuant to Section 361.

(f) (1) The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation ~~is contrary to the child’s welfare, and either of the following circumstances exist:~~ would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(A)Unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subparagraph.
(B)There is substantial evidence that a parent or guardian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm.

(2) The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.

(3) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(4) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

SEC. 4.

Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

366.21.

(a) Every hearing conducted by the juvenile court reviewing the status of a dependent child shall be placed on the appearance calendar. The court shall advise all persons present at the hearing of the date of the future hearing and of their right to be present and represented by counsel.

(b) Except as provided in Sections 294 and 295, notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 293.

(c) At least 10 calendar days before the hearing, the social worker shall file a supplemental report with the court regarding the services provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian to enable them to assume custody and the efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the child’s sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. If visitation has not been liberalized, the report shall specify what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council’s Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the child’s foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregiver’s primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.

(d) Prior to any hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a community care facility or a foster family agency that may result in the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, or in adoption or the creation of a legal guardianship, or in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the child’s tribe, tribal customary adoption, the facility or agency shall file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council’s Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.

(e) (1) At the review hearing held 6 months after the initial dispositional hearing, but no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care as determined in Section 361.49, whichever occurs earlier, after considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child’s removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent’s or guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; and the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.

(2) Regardless of whether the child is returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental or would not be detrimental. The court also shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366; and, when relevant, shall order any additional services reasonably believed to facilitate the return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.

(3) If the child was under three years of age on the date of the initial removal, or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services have not been provided, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.

(4) For the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.

(5) If the child was removed initially under subdivision (g) of Section 300 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the whereabouts of the parent are still unknown, or the parent has failed to contact and visit the child, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. The court shall take into account any particular barriers to a parent’s ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parent’s incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.

(6) If the child had been placed under court supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.

(7) In all other cases, the court shall direct that any reunification services previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.

(8) If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall order that those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.

(9) The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(10) The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.

(11) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(12) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

(f) (1) The permanency hearing shall be held no later than 12 months after the date the child entered foster care, as that date is determined pursuant to Section 361.49. At the permanency hearing, the court shall determine the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the child will be returned to the child’s home and, if so, when, within the time limits of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.

(A) At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child’s removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent’s or legal guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child, including visitation, have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.

(B) The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.

(C) In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.

(D) For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.

(2) Regardless of whether the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

(3) The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this paragraph. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(4) The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration that is most conducive to quality family time, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.

(5) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(6) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

(g) If the time period in which the court-ordered services were provided has met or exceeded the time period set forth in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, as appropriate, and a child is not returned to the custody of a parent or legal guardian at the permanency hearing held pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:

(1) Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:

(A) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.

(B) That the parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home.

(C) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.

(i) For purposes of this subdivision, the court’s decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.

(ii) The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.

(2) Continue the case for up to six months for a permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 18 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, if the parent has been arrested and issued an immigration hold, detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian.

(3) For purposes of paragraph (2), in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall find all of the following:

(A) The parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child, taking into account any particular barriers to a parent’s ability to maintain contact with their child due to the parent’s arrest and receipt of an immigration hold, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.

(B) The parent or legal guardian has made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal from the home.

(C) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity or ability both to complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.

(4) Order that a hearing be held within 120 days, pursuant to Section 366.26, but only if the court does not continue the case to the permanency planning review hearing and there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parents or legal guardians. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.

(5) Order that the child remain in foster care, but only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based upon the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the court’s determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the child’s circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependent’s legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.

(A) The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. When the child is under 16 years of age, the court shall order a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. When the child is 16 years of age or older, or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501.

(B) If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the child’s relationships with individuals other than the child’s siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.

(C) If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

(h) In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the child’s siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the child’s caregiver receive the child’s birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or older receive their birth certificate.

(i) (1) Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including, when, in consultation with the child’s tribe, tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:

(A) Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.

(B) A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, “extended family” for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the child’s siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.

(ii) The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.

(iii) In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.

(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the child’s needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.

(E) The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relative’s or adoptive parent’s strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the child’s age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.

(F) A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.

(G) An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.

(H) In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the child’s tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:

(i) Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(ii) Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(2) (A) A relative caregiver’s preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, shall not constitute the sole basis for recommending removal of the child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement.

(B) Regardless of their immigration status, a relative caregiver shall be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption, including the long-term benefits and consequences of each option, prior to establishing legal guardianship or pursuing adoption. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, the relative caregiver shall be informed about the terms and conditions of the negotiated agreement pursuant to Section 11387 and shall agree to its execution prior to the hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26. A copy of the executed negotiated agreement shall be attached to the assessment.

(j) If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.

(k) As used in this section, “relative” means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, “relative” as used in this section has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.

(l) For purposes of this section, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of itself, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:

(1) The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.

(2) The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.

(3) Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.

SEC. 5.

Section 366.22 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

366.22.

(a) (1) When a case has been continued pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, the permanency review hearing shall occur within 18 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the admissible and relevant evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child’s removal, to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent’s or legal guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers of a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated or institutionalized parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.

(2) Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the child’s permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

(3) Unless the conditions in subdivision (b) are met and the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, in consultation with the child’s tribe, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child, and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependent’s legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the child’s relationships with individuals other than the child’s siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, including visitation. For purposes of this subdivision, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:

(A) The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.

(B) The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.

(C) Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.

(b) (1) If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to a parent or legal guardian who is making significant and consistent progress in a court-ordered residential substance abuse treatment program, a parent who was either a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the time of the initial hearing making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return, or a parent recently discharged from incarceration, institutionalization, or the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security and making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child’s return, the court may continue the case for up to six months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, provided that the hearing shall occur within 24 months of the date the child was originally taken from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian.

(2) (A) Except as provided in paragraph (1) and subject to subparagraph (B), if the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the permanency review hearing and the court finds that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall extend reunification services for an additional six months.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence based on competent evidence from a mental health professional that extending the time period for reunification services would be detrimental to the child, the court is not required to extend reunification services for an additional six months. The court shall state, either on the record or in writing, the reasons for its finding. Neither the passage of time nor the child’s relationship with the caregiver shall be grounds, in and of themselves, for the denial of further reunification services.

(3) The court shall continue the case only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made. For the purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:

(A) That the parent or legal guardian has consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child.

(B) That the parent or legal guardian has made significant and consistent progress in the prior 18 months in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from the home.

(C) (i) The parent or legal guardian has demonstrated the capacity and ability both to complete the objectives of their substance abuse treatment plan as evidenced by reports from a substance abuse provider as applicable, or complete a treatment plan postdischarge from incarceration, institutionalization, or detention, or following deportation to their country of origin and their return to the United States, and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.

(ii) For purposes of this subdivision, the court’s decision to continue the case based on a finding or substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian is a compelling reason for determining that a hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child.

(iii) The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the subsequent permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.

(4) The juvenile court’s findings under this subdivision shall constitute prima facie evidence that visitation between parent or legal guardian and child does not need to be supervised. Any party seeking to maintain or institute supervised visitation shall bear the burden to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.

(c) (1) Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26, including when a tribal customary adoption is recommended, shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:

(A) Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.

(B) A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, “extended family” for the purposes of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the child’s siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.

(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the child’s needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and Section 361.4.

(E) The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relative’s or adoptive parent’s strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the child’s age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.

(F) An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.

(G) In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (F), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the child’s tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an analysis of both of the following:

(i) Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(ii) Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(d) This section shall become operative January 1, 1999. If at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a legal guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.

(e) As used in this section, “relative” means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, “relative” as used in this section has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.

(f) (1) The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(3) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(4) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

SEC. 6.

Section 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read:

366.25.

(a) (1) When a case has been continued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, the subsequent permanency review hearing shall occur within 24 months after the date the child was originally removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian. After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the court shall order the return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. At the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child’s removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or parent’s or legal guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations, which shall specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare; the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5; the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided; and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.

(2) Whether or not the child is returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its decision. If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that return would be detrimental. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state options for the child’s permanent placement. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.

(3) If the child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the subsequent permanency review hearing, the court shall order that a hearing be held pursuant to Section 366.26 in order to determine whether adoption, or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, guardianship, or, in the case of a child 16 years of age or older when no other permanent plan is appropriate, another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate plan for the child. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan. However, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence already presented to it, including a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, that there is a compelling reason, as described in paragraph (5) of subdivision (g) of Section 366.21, for determining that a hearing held under Section 366.26 is not in the best interest of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption or, in the case of an Indian child, tribal customary adoption, and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date, then the court may, only under these circumstances, order that the child remain in foster care with a permanent plan of return home, adoption, tribal customary adoption in the case of an Indian child, legal guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, as appropriate. If the child is 16 years of age or older or is a nonminor dependent, and no other permanent plan is appropriate at the time of the hearing, the court may order another planned permanent living arrangement, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 16501. The court shall make factual findings identifying any barriers to achieving the permanent plan as of the hearing date. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependent’s legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement. If the court orders that a child who is 10 years of age or older remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the child’s relationships with individuals other than the child’s siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained. The hearing shall be held no later than 120 days from the date of the subsequent permanency review hearing. The court shall also order termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this paragraph, evidence of any of the following circumstances shall not, in and of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide or offer reasonable services:

(A) The child has been placed with a foster family that is eligible to adopt a child, or has been placed in a preadoptive home.

(B) The case plan includes services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.

(C) Services to make and finalize a permanent placement for the child, if efforts to reunify fail, are provided concurrently with services to reunify the family.

(b) (1) Whenever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include:

(A) Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents.

(B) A review of the amount of, and nature of, any contact between the child and their parents and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, “extended family” for the purposes of this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to, the child’s siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.

(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the child’s needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed legal guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.

(E) The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including a prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relative’s or adoptive parent’s strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or legal guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or legal guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the child’s age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a description of the condition.

(F) An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.

(i) Whether tribal customary adoption would or would not be detrimental to the Indian child and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(ii) Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

(c) If, at any hearing held pursuant to Section 366.26, a guardianship is established for the minor with an approved relative caregiver, and juvenile court dependency is subsequently dismissed, the minor shall be eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.5 (commencing with Section 11360) or Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385), as applicable, of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9.

(d) As used in this section, “relative” means an adult who is related to the minor by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, “relative” as used in this section has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.

(e) (1) The court shall order unsupervised visitation for the parent or legal guardian unless the court finds that unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare, and unsupervised visitation would pose a safety risk to the child based on the child’s specific needs and circumstances or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation. A determination that the parent or guardian was previously noncustodial shall not be the sole basis for a finding under this subdivision. would present an identified present danger of harm to the child, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without having supervised visitation.

(2) The order for visitation shall set forth a frequency and duration for visitation, whether the visitation shall be supervised, and any other specific terms or restrictions for visitation.

(3) If the court makes an order for supervised visitation, the court shall specify the factual basis for its order, and shall order the county child welfare agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or legal guardian to supervise the visitation. If, after assessment, no person has been approved to supervise the visit, the agency or its designee shall supervise the visits at a time when both parent or legal guardian and child are available. The court shall order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds that granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

(4) Visits shall take place in the least restrictive setting that is most conducive to quality family time.

SEC. 7.

To the extent that this act has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation within the meaning of Section 36 of Article XIII of the California Constitution, it shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Any new program or higher level of service provided by a local agency pursuant to this act above the level for which funding has been provided shall not require a subvention of funds by the state or otherwise be subject to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

LegiScan Search

View Top 50 Searches

LegiScan Info

Price List

Voter Registration

Governor Deadlines &
Effective Dates

LegiScan Trends

View Top 50 National

OH HB158 Regards the regulation of cosmetologists and barbers

OH HB79 Permit electric distribution utility establish certain portfolios

OH HB466 Requires written real estate agency agreement for representation

OH SB168 Regards education regulation reform

OH SB156 Regards designation of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers

OH HB684 Prohibit use of ranked choice voting

OH HB654 Enact Strategic Tax Opportunities for Raising Kids (STORK) Act

OH HB678 Revise "companion animal" for companion animal cruelty law

OH HB658 Create the Ohio Craft Brewers license plate

OH HB651 Rename Mosquito Lake State Park as Donald J. Trump State Park

Main menu

Bill Text: CA AB2752 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Amended

California Assembly Bill 2752

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

Digest Key

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

319.

SEC. 2.

362.1.

SEC. 3.

364.

SEC. 4.

366.21.

SEC. 5.

366.22.

SEC. 6.

366.25.

SEC. 7.

LegiScan Search

LegiScan Info

LegiScan Trends