Bill Text: CA AB438 | 2013-2014 | Regular Session | Introduced
Bill Title: Juveniles: dual-status minors.
Sponsorship: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1)
Status: (Introduced - Dead) 2014-02-03 - From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. [AB438 Detail]
Download: California-2013-AB438-Introduced.html
BILL NUMBER: AB 438 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Mitchell
FEBRUARY 15, 2013
An act to amend Section 241.1 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to juveniles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 438, as introduced, Mitchell. Juveniles: dual-status minors.
Existing law prohibits the entry of an order by a juvenile court,
or the filing of a petition, to make a minor simultaneously both a
dependent child and a ward of the court, unless a written protocol
has been created in that county, as specified, to allow the county
probation department and the child welfare services department to
jointly assess and produce a recommendation that the child be
designated as a dual status child.
This bill would delete the prohibition on the filing of a
petition or the entry of an order to make a minor simultaneously both
a dependent child and a ward of the court.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 241.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
241.1. (a) Whenever a minor appears to come within the
description of both Section 300 and Section 601 or 602, the county
probation department and the child welfare services department shall,
pursuant to a jointly developed written protocol described in
subdivision (b), initially determine which status will serve the best
interests of the minor and the protection of society. The
recommendations of both departments shall be presented to the
juvenile court with the petition that is filed on behalf of the
minor, and the court shall determine which status is appropriate for
the minor. Any other juvenile court having jurisdiction over the
minor shall receive notice from the court, within five calendar days,
of the presentation of the recommendations of the departments. The
notice shall include the name of the judge to whom, or the courtroom
to which, the recommendations were presented.
(b) (1) The probation department and the child welfare services
department in each county shall jointly develop a written protocol to
ensure appropriate local coordination in the assessment of a minor
described in subdivision (a), and the development of recommendations
by these departments for consideration by the juvenile court.
(2) These protocols shall require, but not be limited to,
consideration of the nature of the referral, the age of the minor,
the prior record of the minor's parents for child abuse, the prior
record of the minor for out-of-control or delinquent behavior, the
parents' cooperation with the minor's school, the minor's functioning
at school, the nature of the minor's home environment, and the
records of other agencies that have been involved with the minor and
his or her family. The protocols also shall contain provisions for
resolution of disagreements between the probation and child welfare
services departments regarding the need for dependency or ward status
and provisions for determining the circumstances under which filing
a new petition is required to change the minor's status.
(3) The protocols shall contain the following processes:
(A) A process for determining which agency and court shall
supervise a child whose jurisdiction is modified from delinquency
jurisdiction to dependency jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (2) of
subdivision (b) of Section 607.2 or subdivision (i) of Section 727.2.
(B) A process for determining which agency and court shall
supervise a nonminor dependent under the transition jurisdiction of
the juvenile court.
(C) A process that specifically addresses the manner in which
supervision responsibility is determined when a nonminor dependent
becomes subject to adult probation supervision.
(c) Whenever a minor who is under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court of a county pursuant to Section 300, 601, or 602 is alleged to
come within the description of Section 300, 601, or 602 by another
county, the county probation department or child welfare services
department in the county that has jurisdiction under Section 300,
601, or 602 and the county probation department or child welfare
services department of the county alleging the minor to be within one
of those sections shall initially determine which status will best
serve the best interests of the minor and the protection of society.
The recommendations of both departments shall be presented to the
juvenile court in which the petition is filed on behalf of the minor,
and the court shall determine which status is appropriate for the
minor. In making their recommendation to the juvenile court, the
departments shall conduct an assessment consistent with the
requirements of subdivision (b). Any other juvenile court having
jurisdiction over the minor shall receive notice from the court in
which the petition is filed within five calendar days of the
presentation of the recommendations of the departments. The notice
shall include the name of the judge to whom, or the courtroom to
which, the recommendations were presented.
(d) Except as provided in subdivision (e), nothing in this section
shall be construed to authorize the filing of a petition or
petitions, or the entry of an order by the juvenile court, to make a
minor simultaneously both a dependent child and a ward of the court.
(e) Notwithstanding subdivision (d), the
(d) The probation department and
the child welfare services department, in consultation with the
presiding judge of the juvenile court, in any county may create a
jointly written protocol to allow the county probation department and
the child welfare services department to jointly assess and produce
a recommendation that the child be designated as a dual status child,
allowing the child to be simultaneously a dependent child and a ward
of the court. This protocol shall be signed by the chief probation
officer, the director of the county social services agency, and the
presiding judge of the juvenile court prior to its implementation.
No juvenile court may order that a child is simultaneously a
dependent child and a ward of the court pursuant to this subdivision
unless and until the required protocol has been created and entered
into. This protocol shall include all of the following:
(1) A description of the process to be used to determine whether
the child is eligible to be designated as a dual status child.
(2) A description of the procedure by which the probation
department and the child welfare services department will assess the
necessity for dual status for specified children and the process to
make joint recommendations for the court's consideration prior to
making a determination under this section. These recommendations
shall ensure a seamless transition from wardship to dependency
jurisdiction, as appropriate, so that services to the child are not
disrupted upon termination of the wardship.
(3) A provision for ensuring communication between the judges who
hear petitions concerning children for whom dependency jurisdiction
has been suspended while they are within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court pursuant to Section 601 or 602. A judge may
communicate by providing a copy of any reports filed pursuant to
Section 727.2 concerning a ward to a court that has jurisdiction over
dependency proceedings concerning the child.
(4) A plan to collect data in order to evaluate the protocol
pursuant to Section 241.2.
(5) Counties that exercise the option provided for in this
subdivision shall adopt either an "on-hold" system as described in
subparagraph (A) or a "lead court/lead agency" system as described in
subparagraph (B). In no case shall there be any simultaneous or
duplicative case management or services provided by both the county
probation department and the child welfare services department. It is
the intent of the Legislature that judges, in cases in which more
than one judge is involved, shall not issue conflicting orders.
(A) In counties in which an on-hold system is adopted, the
dependency jurisdiction shall be suspended or put on hold while the
child is subject to jurisdiction as a ward of the court. When it
appears that termination of the court's jurisdiction, as established
pursuant to Section 601 or 602, is likely and that reunification of
the child with his or her parent or guardian would be detrimental to
the child, the county probation department and the child welfare
services department shall jointly assess and produce a recommendation
for the court regarding whether the court's dependency jurisdiction
shall be resumed.
(B) In counties in which a lead court/lead agency system is
adopted, the protocol shall include a method for identifying which
court or agency will be the lead court/lead agency. That court or
agency shall be responsible for case management, conducting
statutorily mandated court hearings, and submitting court reports.
(f)
(e) Whenever the court determines pursuant to this
section or Section 607.2 or 727.2 that it is necessary to modify the
court's jurisdiction over a dependent or ward who was removed from
his or her parent or guardian and placed in foster care, the court
shall ensure that all of the following conditions are met:
(1) The petition under which jurisdiction was taken at the time
the dependent or ward was originally removed is not dismissed until
the new petition has been sustained.
(2) The order modifying the court's jurisdiction contains all of
the following provisions:
(A) Reference to the original removal findings and a statement
that findings that continuation in the home is contrary to the child'
s welfare, and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal,
remain in effect.
(B) A statement that the child continues to be removed from the
parent or guardian from whom the child was removed under the original
petition.
(C) Identification of the agency that is responsible for placement
and care of the child based upon the modification of jurisdiction.
