Bill Text: CA SB1336 | 2015-2016 | Regular Session | Amended

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

---

Bill Title: Dependent children: investigation: relatives.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 1-0)

Status: (Passed) 2016-09-30 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 890, Statutes of 2016. [SB1336 Detail]

Download: California-2015-SB1336-Amended.html

---

BILL NUMBER: SB 1336	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 14, 2016
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MARCH 28, 2016

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Jackson

                        FEBRUARY 19, 2016

   An act to amend Sections 358 and 361.3 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, relating to dependent children.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 1336, as amended, Jackson. Dependent children: placement with
relatives.
   Existing law requires a county social worker to investigate the
circumstances of each child taken into temporary custody by a peace
officer who has reasonable cause to believe the child is the victim
of abuse or neglect. Existing law requires the social worker to
conduct an investigation to identify and locate adult relatives of
the child and to provide him or her with a specified relative
information form. Existing law further requires the social worker to
initiate an assessment of the suitability of a relative who requests
that the child be placed with him or her.
   Under existing law, the juvenile court is required to hold a
hearing to determine the proper disposition to be made of a child
adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court. Existing law requires the
court to consider the social study of the child made by the social
worker before the court arrives at its judgment. Existing law
requires that, subsequent to the hearing, consideration for placement
be given to relatives, as specified.
   This bill would require the juvenile court to  consider
  make a finding as to  whether the social worker
exercised due diligence in conducting his or her investigation to
identify, locate, and notify the child's relatives.  The bill
would require the court to continue the disposition hearing if the
social worker did not exercise due diligence.  The bill
would state the intent of the Legislature to clarify, if a child is
receiving reunification services and a relative identifies himself or
herself to a county child welfare agency, that the relative be
evaluated by the county child welfare agency and a recommendation be
made to the court as to whether the relative should or should not be
considered for placement.
   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.  It is the intent of the Legislature in amending Section
361.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to clarify, if a child is
receiving reunification services and a relative identifies himself
or herself to a county child welfare agency, that the relative be
evaluated by the county child welfare agency and a recommendation be
made to the court as to whether the relative should or should not be
considered for placement.
  SEC. 2.  Section 358 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   358.  (a) After finding that a child is a person described in
Section 300, the court shall hear evidence on the question of the
proper disposition to be made of the child. Prior to making a finding
required by this section, the court may continue the hearing on its
own motion, the motion of the parent or guardian, or the motion of
the child, as follows:
   (1) If the child is detained during the continuance, and the
social worker is not alleging that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5
is applicable, the continuance shall not exceed 10 judicial days. The
court may make an order for detention of the child or for the child'
s release from detention, during the period of continuance, as is
appropriate.
   (2) If the child is not detained during the continuance, the
continuance shall not exceed 30 days after the date of the finding
pursuant to Section 356. However, the court may, for cause, continue
the hearing for an additional 15 days.
   (3) If the social worker is alleging that subdivision (b) of
Section 361.5 is applicable, the court shall continue the proceedings
for a period not to exceed 30 days. The social worker shall notify
each parent of the content of subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 and
shall inform each parent that if the court does not order
reunification a permanency planning hearing will be held, and that
his or her parental rights may be terminated within the timeframes
specified by law.
   (b) Before determining the appropriate disposition, the court
shall receive in evidence the social study of the child made by the
social worker, any study or evaluation made by a child advocate
appointed by the court, and other relevant and material evidence as
may be offered, including, but not limited to, the willingness of the
caregiver to provide legal permanency for the child if reunification
is unsuccessful. In any judgment and order of disposition, the court
shall specifically state that the social study made by the social
worker and the study or evaluation made by the child advocate
appointed by the court, if there be any, has been read and considered
by the court in arriving at its judgment and order of disposition.
Any social study or report submitted to the court by the social
worker shall include the individual child's case plan developed
pursuant to Section 16501.1.
   (1)  If the   Whenever a  child is
removed from  the   a  parent's or guardian'
s custody, the court shall  consider whether  
make a finding as to whether  the social worker has exercised
due diligence in conducting the  investigation  
investigation, as required pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision
(e) of Section 309,  to identify, locate, and notify the child's
 relatives.   relatives, including both
maternal and paternal relatives. 
   (2) When making the determination required pursuant to paragraph
(1), the court may consider, among other examples of due diligence,
 whether   the extent to which  the social
worker has  complied with paragraph (1) of subdivision (e) of
Section 309, and has  done any of the following:
   (A) Asked the child, in an age-appropriate manner and consistent
with the child's best interest, about his or her relatives.
   (B) Obtained information regarding the location of the child's
relatives.
   (C) Reviewed the child's case file for any information regarding
the child's relatives.
   (D) Telephoned, emailed, or visited all identified relatives.
   (E) Asked located relatives for the names and locations of other
relatives.
   (F) Used Internet search tools to locate relatives identified as
supports. 
   (3) The court shall continue the disposition hearing if the court
finds that the social worker has failed to exercise due diligence in
finding the child's relatives to allow time for due diligence to be
exercised. 
   (c) If the court finds that a child is described by subdivision
(h) of Section 300 or that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 may be
applicable, the court shall conduct the dispositional proceeding
pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 361.5.
  SEC. 3.  Section 361.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is
amended to read:
   361.3.  (a) In any case in which a child is removed from the
physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361,
preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative
of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless
of the relative's immigration status. In determining whether
placement with a relative is appropriate, the county social worker
and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration
of all the following factors:
   (1) The best interest of the child, including special physical,
psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs.
   (2) The wishes of the parent, the relative, and child, if
appropriate.
   (3) The provisions of Part 6 (commencing with Section 7950) of
Division 12 of the Family Code regarding relative placement.
   (4) Placement of siblings and half siblings in the same home,
unless that placement is found to be contrary to the safety and
well-being of any of the siblings, as provided in Section 16002.
   (5) The good moral character of the relative and any other adult
living in the home, including whether any individual residing in the
home has a prior history of violent criminal acts or has been
responsible for acts of child abuse or neglect.
   (6) The nature and duration of the relationship between the child
and the relative, and the relative's desire to care for, and to
provide legal permanency for, the child if reunification is
unsuccessful.
   (7) The ability of the relative to do the following:
   (A) Provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child.
   (B) Exercise proper and effective care and control of the child.
   (C) Provide a home and the necessities of life for the child.
   (D) Protect the child from his or her parents.
   (E) Facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the
parents.
   (F) Facilitate visitation with the child's other relatives.
   (G) Facilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan.
   (H) Provide legal permanence for the child if reunification fails.

   However, any finding made with respect to the factor considered
pursuant to this subparagraph and pursuant to subparagraph (G) shall
not be the sole basis for precluding preferential placement with a
relative.
   (I) Arrange for appropriate and safe child care, as necessary.
   (8) The safety of the relative's home. For a relative to be
considered appropriate to receive placement of a child under this
section, the relative's home shall first be approved pursuant to the
process and standards described in subdivision (d) of Section 309.
   In this regard, the Legislature declares that a physical
disability, such as blindness or deafness, is no bar to the raising
of children, and a county social worker's determination as to the
ability of a disabled relative to exercise care and control should
center upon whether the relative's disability prevents him or her
from exercising care and control. The court shall order the parent to
disclose to the county social worker the names, residences, and any
other known identifying information of any maternal or paternal
relatives of the child. This inquiry shall not be construed, however,
to guarantee that the child will be placed with any person so
identified. The county social worker shall initially contact the
relatives given preferential consideration for placement to determine
if they desire the child to be placed with them. Those desiring
placement shall be assessed according to the factors enumerated in
this subdivision. The county social worker shall document these
efforts in the social study prepared pursuant to Section 358.1. The
court shall authorize the county social worker, while assessing these
relatives for the possibility of placement, to disclose to the
relative, as appropriate, the fact that the child is in custody, the
alleged reasons for the custody, and the projected likely date for
the child's return home or placement for adoption or legal
guardianship. However, this investigation shall not be construed as
good cause for continuance of the dispositional hearing conducted
pursuant to Section 358.
   (b) In any case in which more than one appropriate relative
requests preferential consideration pursuant to this section, each
relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated in
subdivision (a). Consistent with the legislative intent for children
to be placed immediately with a responsible relative, this section
does not limit the county social worker's ability to place a child in
the home of an appropriate relative or a nonrelative extended family
member pending the consideration of other relatives who have
requested preferential consideration.
   (c) For purposes of this section:
   (1) "Preferential consideration" means that the relative seeking
placement shall be the first placement to be considered and
investigated.
   (2) "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. However, only the following relatives shall be
given preferential consideration for the placement of the child: an
adult who is a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or sibling.
   (d) Subsequent to the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358,
consideration for placement shall be given as described in this
section to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who
will fulfill the child's reunification or permanent plan
requirements. In addition to the factors described in subdivision
(a), the county social worker shall consider whether the relative has
established and maintained a relationship with the child.
   (e) If the court does not place the child with a relative who has
been considered for placement pursuant to this section, the court
shall state for the record the reasons placement with that relative
was denied.
   (f) (1) With respect to a child who satisfies the criteria set
forth in paragraph (2), the department and any licensed adoption
agency may search for a relative and furnish identifying information
relating to the child to that relative if it is believed the child's
welfare will be promoted thereby.
   (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply if both of the following conditions
are satisfied:
   (A) The child was previously a dependent of the court.
   (B) The child was previously adopted and the adoption has been
disrupted, set aside pursuant to Section 9100 or 9102 of the Family
Code, or the child has been released into the custody of the
department or a licensed adoption agency by the adoptive parent or
parents.
   (3) As used in this subdivision, "relative" includes a member of
the child's birth family and nonrelated extended family members,
regardless of whether the parental rights were terminated, provided
that both of the following are true:
   (A) No appropriate potential caretaker is known to exist from the
child's adoptive family, including nonrelated extended family members
of the adoptive family.
   (B) The child was not the subject of a voluntary relinquishment by
the birth parents pursuant to Section 8700 of the Family Code or
Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code.