Foster youth: permanency.

Existing law provides that a minor may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents if 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 to protect the child without removing him or her. Additionally, a minor who is in wardship proceedings may be removed from the physical custody of his or her parents if the court finds that one of several facts is present, including that the parent or guardian is incapable of providing or has failed to provide proper maintenance, training, and education for the minor. When a minor is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents in dependency or wardship proceedings, existing law generally requires that reunification services be provided to a minor and his or her family. Existing law also provides for periodic status review hearings, at which the court must return a minor to the physical custody of his or her parents unless the court makes specified findings. Existing law requires, if a minor is not returned to the physical custody of his or her parents, the juvenile court to devise a permanency plan, including, among others, an order that the child be placed for adoption, an order that a legal guardian be appointed, or an order that the child remain in another planned permanent living arrangement or long-term foster care. Existing law requires, prior to ordering a dependent child to remain in another planned permanent living arrangement or long-term foster care as his or her permanency plan, the court to make a finding that the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship. This bill would generally delete references to "long-term foster care" and, instead, refer to that permanency plan as "another planned permanent living arrangement" and would establish a new permanency plan option of placement with a fit and willing relative. The bill would prohibit a child under 16 years of age from having as his or her permanency plan continued placement in another planned permanent living arrangement and would require a child 16 years of age or older to be receiving specialized permanency services in order to continue in another planned permanent living arrangement. The bill would require for any child who has as his or her permanency plan another planned permanent living arrangement, and would authorize for children under 16 years of age and in an out-of-home placement, the placing agency to, among other things, conduct intensive and ongoing efforts to return the child home or secure a placement for the child with a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or an adoptive parent. The bill would also require for any child who has as his or her permanency plan another planned permanent living arrangement, and would authorize for children under 16 years of age and in an out-of-home placement, the court, at each permanency hearing to, among other things, review the intensive, ongoing, and, as of the date of the hearing, unsuccessful efforts made by the placing agency to return the child home or secure a placement for the child with a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or an adoptive parent and to redetermine the appropriateness of placement. The bill would require, prior to a child being deemed not a proper subject for adoption or as having no one willing to accept legal guardianship, the child to receive specialized permanency services. The bill would also require, commencing January 1, 2017, in any case in which the court has ordered a dependent child or a ward of the juvenile court placed for adoption or has appointed a relative or nonrelative legal guardian, the social worker or probation officer to provide the prospective adoptive family or the guardian or guardians specified mental health treatment information. By expanding the duties of social workers and probation officers with regard to the provision of child welfare services, 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 specified reasons.