Dependent children: wards of the juvenile court: sibling visitation.
Summary
(1) Under existing law, a child may come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and become a dependent child of the court in certain cases, including when the child is abused, a parent or guardian fails to adequately supervise or protect the child, as specified, or a parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law requires the responsible local agency to make a diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent children to place siblings together in the same placement, and to develop and maintain sibling relationships. This bill would extend that requirement to all out-of-home placements of wards in foster care. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law permits any person to petition the juvenile court to assert a sibling relationship with a dependent child or a child who is the subject of a petition for adjudication as a dependent child and make certain requests, including a request for visitation with the dependent child. This bill would also authorize a dependent child or a nonminor dependent to request visitation with a sibling who is in the physical custody of a common legal or biological parent. The bill would authorize a court to grant those requests for visitation, unless it is determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. This bill would authorize any person, including a ward, a transition dependent, or a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court, to petition the court to assert a relationship as a sibling and make certain requests, including a request for visitation, with a sibling who is, or is the subject of an adjudication as, a ward of the juvenile court, as specified. The bill would authorize a ward, transition dependent, or nonminor dependent to assert a relationship as a sibling and request visitation with a nondependent sibling who is in the physical custody of a common legal or biological parent. The bill would authorize a court to grant those requests for visitation, unless it is determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. (3) Existing law requires, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and a child placed in foster care, an order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child and for visitation between any siblings and the child. This bill would additionally require an order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling visitation at each periodic review hearing and for a requirement that, in order for the suspension to continue, a court make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child. (4) Existing law requires that the status of a dependent child in foster care be reviewed periodically, but no less frequently than once every 6 months. Existing law requires a court to determine specified information at that hearing, including whether the child has any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the frequency and nature of the visits between siblings. Existing law requires a social worker or child advocate appointed by the court, when preparing certain social studies or evaluations, to include specified information, including whether the child has any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the frequency and nature of the visits between siblings. This bill would additionally require, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the court to determine, and require a social worker or child advocate appointed by the court to include in those social studies or evaluations, whether any visits between the siblings are supervised or unsupervised, and if visits are supervised, a discussion of the reasons why the visits are supervised, and what needs to be accomplished in order for the visits to be unsupervised, a description of the location and length of any visits, and any plan to increase visitation between siblings. By requiring county social workers to include additional information in certain social studies or evaluations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law requires, after a minor is adjudged to be a ward of the court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. Existing law requires the probation officer to prepare a case plan if placement in foster care is recommended by the probation officer, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or pending placement. Existing law requires the probation officer to include, among other things, scheduled visits between the minor and his or her family and an explanation if no visits are made. This bill would additionally require the probation officer to include specified information relating to the child's siblings. By imposing additional duties on probation officers, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 358.1 and 366.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 977, that would become operative only if this bill and SB 977 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. The bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16002 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 1460, that would become operative only if this bill and SB 1460 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 361.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 977 and SB 1460, that would become operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. (7) 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2014
Committee Review
Aug 2014
Senate Passage
May 2014
Assembly Passage
Aug 2014
Signed into Law
Sep 2014
Introduced Feb 19, 2014
Signed Sep 29, 2014
Floor votes · Senate May 27, 2014 · Assembly Aug 27, 2014
How they voted
31–0
Passed · 4 other
Total votes 35
May 27, 2014
D
Democratic25
84% Yea
R
Republican10
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
29
Key actions
9
Committee
8
Amendments
2
Sep 29, 2014
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 29, 2014
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 4973.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Aug 27, 2014
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (64-0-1)
assembly
Aug 27, 2014
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Aug 14, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (August 14).
lower
Jul 2, 2014
Committee
Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jun 24, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jun 2, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
May 27, 2014
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (31-0-4)
senate
May 23, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3708.) (May 23).
upper
Apr 29, 2014
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 28, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3235.) (April 22).
upper
Feb 27, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
1 primary · 14 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Darrell Steinberg
DDemocratic
Co
Anthony Cannella
RRepublican
Co
Bill Quirk
DDemocratic
Co
BN
Brian Nestande
RRepublican
Co
Jim Beall
DDemocratic
Co
Jim Frazier
DDemocratic
Co
Joel Anderson
RRepublican
Co
Jose Medina
DDemocratic
Co
Katcho Achadjian
RRepublican
Co
Lou Correa
DDemocratic
Co
MY
Mariko Yamada
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 1099
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 1099. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline