AB 559

This bill changes the grounds for finding that a child is in need of protection or

services under the Children's Code and for involuntarily terminating parental rights

(TPR), eliminates the right to a jury trial in a TPR proceeding, and changes the

process for permanency plan reviews under the Children's Code and Juvenile Justice

Code.

Grounds for CHIPS

Under current law, the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under the

Children's Code (juvenile court) has exclusive original jurisdiction over a child who

is alleged to be in need of protection or services (CHIPS) that can be ordered by the

juvenile court and who meets certain grounds. This bill creates a new ground for

CHIPS where a child is found to be a drug-affected child. Under the bill, a

drug-affected child is defined as a child who suffered prenatal exposure to a

controlled substance or a child whose basic needs and safety have been adversely

affected by a parent's or guardian's chronic and severe use of alcohol or a controlled

substance.

Grounds for TPR

Under current law, in a proceeding for involuntary TPR, the juvenile court must

determine whether grounds exist for TPR. One of the grounds for TPR under current

law is failure to assume parental responsibility for the child, which is established by

proving that the parent or the person who may be the parent of the child has not had

a substantial parental relationship with the child. “Substantial parental

relationship” is defined in current law as the acceptance and exercise of significant

responsibility for the daily supervision, education, protection, and care of the child.

In evaluating whether a person has had a substantial parental relationship with the

child, current law allows the juvenile court to consider certain factors, including

whether the person has expressed concern for or interest in the support, care, or

well-being of the child and whether, with respect to a person who is or may be the

father of the child, the person has expressed concern for or interest in the support,

care, or well-being of the mother during her pregnancy.

This bill changes the factor related to expressing concern for or interest in the

support, care, or well-being of the child to whether the person has provided care or

support for the child. The bill eliminates the factor of whether the person has

expressed concern for or interest in the support, care, or well-being of the mother

during her pregnancy. The bill instead provides that proving that a person who is

or may be the father of the child failed to provide care and support for the mother

during her pregnancy, without reasonable cause, establishes abandonment of a

child, which is a ground for TPR under current law. Also under the bill, proving that

a parent has failed without reasonable cause to pay court-ordered payments of child

support establishes abandonment of the child.

Other grounds for TPR under current law include 1) continuing need of