HOUSE BILL REPORT

ESHB 1586

BYHouse Committee on Human Services (originally sponsored by Representatives Jones, Brekke, Anderson, Crane, P. King and Rust)

Revising rules for dependency proceedings.

House Committe on Human Services

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (9)

      Signed by Representatives Brekke, Chair; Scott, Vice Chair; Anderson, Leonard, Moyer, Padden, H. Sommers, Sutherland and Winsley.

House Staff:Jean Wessman (786-7132)

AS PASSED HOUSE FEBRUARY 10, 1988

BACKGROUND:

Currently after a fact-finding hearing has been held on a dependency petition, the court makes a determination as to whether the child should be removed from the home. When it is determined that the child should be removed from the home, the agency charged with the child's care is required to submit a plan covering the location of placement and the agency's plans on reunifying the family.  This plan includes the services to be provided to the family and the child.  No specific goal is enumerated nor is a timeline specified for the service plan. All dependency cases are required to undergo a six month review to determine the need for continued court supervision.

The hearing on a filed dependency petition is currently required to be held within forty-five days. This statutory deadline is not always met.

There is no time limit on the length of dependency.  It is suggested this results in cases going on indefinitely and thus resulting in increased risk of multiple placements causing long-term psychological damage to the child.

The Washington State Code Review Panel recommends several changes to the dependency process ensuring that the best interests of the child be considered and that definitive permanency plans, timelines and maximum time frames be established.

SUMMARY:

The goal of achieving permanence for the child is made part of the agency plans submitted when the court finds that a child should be removed from the home. Specific time limits and parental requirements are required to be included in the service plan submitted by the agency.  The required six month review of dependency shall include findings on the completion of the agency service/disposition plan and as necessary revised time limits.

The time frame of the hearing on a filed dependency petition is amended to be required within seventy-five days of the filing unless exceptional reasons for a continuance exist with the burden of proving exceptional circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence on the party requesting the continuance.

A maximum time limit of two years for dependency is established.  At the close of the two years, the court shall either approve a permanent plan of care which includes adoption, guardianship or placement in the parental home, require a termination petition be filed, or dismiss the dependency unless good cause exists for continuance.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S):  The consideration of best interests of the child is deleted from the agency service plan.  The court must schedule the hearing on a dependency petition on an expedited basis.

Fiscal Note:      Requested January 20, 1988.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Representative Evan Jones, Prime Sponsor; Joyce Hopson and Mauree McKaen, Department of Social and Health Services.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Bailey deIongh, Office of the Public Defender, Seattle.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Foster care "drift" is detrimental to the psychological development of a child.  Specific guidelines for permanency plans should be placed in statute along with maximum time limits for dependency to attempt to tighten up the present system and prevent foster care "drift.  While plans are required by the courts in current statute, nothing requires that specific timelines for the service plans be included. Currently hearings held on dependency petitions often occur after the forty-five day limit.  This should be recognized in statute and the deadline extended to seventy-five days which more accurately reflects actual circumstances.  This will also preclude costly continuance hearings extending the current forty-five day limit.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The "best interests of the child" would not be served within the language of the original bill since these actions should occur within a shorter time frame than seventy-five days.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 98