AB 599

Introduction

Under current law, for each child living in an out-of-home placement, the

county department of human services or social services, the licensed child welfare

agency, or the Department of Children and Families (DCF) that placed the child or

arranged the placement of the child or the agency assigned primary responsibility

for providing services to the child (collectively "agency") must prepare a permanency

plan for the child. A permanency plan must describe, among other things, the goal

or goals of the permanency plan, with those goals being either the safe return of the

child to his or her home or placement of the child for adoption, with a guardian, with

a fit and willing relative, or in some other alternative permanent placement, such as

sustaining care, independent living, or long-term foster care.

This bill changes the term "permanency plan" to "case plan" and makes certain

other changes relating to case planning for a child placed in out-of-home care,

including changes relating to: 1) concurrent planning; 2) trial reunifications; and 3)

planned permanent living arrangements, for such a child.

Concurrent planning

Under current law, an agency, at the same time as the agency is making

reasonable efforts to prevent the removal of a child from his or her home or to make

it possible for the child to return home, may work with an adoption agency in making

reasonable efforts to place the child for adoption, with a guardian, with a fit and

willing relative, or in some other alternative permanent placement (concurrent

reasonable efforts). If an agency is making concurrent reasonable efforts, the child's

permanency plan must include the goals of the permanency plan.

This bill eliminates the authority of an agency to make concurrent reasonable

efforts and instead permits an agency to engage in concurrent planning, which the

bill defines as reasonable efforts to work simultaneously towards achieving more

than one permanency goal for a child. Under the bill, an agency must determine, in

accordance with standards established by DCF (concurrent planning standards)

whether to engage in concurrent planning. If, according to the concurrent planning

standards, concurrent planning is required, the agency must engage in concurrent

planning and the juvenile court must make a finding as to whether the agency has

made reasonable efforts to achieve the primary goal of the concurrent plan. If an

agency determines to engage in concurrent planning for a child, the child's case plan

must include the rationale for that determination and a description of the concurrent

plan and the primary and concurrent goals of the concurrent plan. In addition, if a

child's case plan calls for concurrent planning, the court assigned to exercise

jurisdiction under the Children's Code and the Juvenile Justice Code (juvenile court)

or a case plan review panel appointed by the juvenile court, in reviewing the child's

case plan, must determine the appropriateness, in light of the concurrent planning

standards, of each of the permanency goals of the concurrent plan and, if the juvenile