SENATE BILL REPORT

                   SB 6389

              As Reported By Senate Committee On:

        Human Services & Corrections, February 4, 2000

Title:  An act relating to court jurisdiction over permanency planning matters in dependency proceedings.

Brief Description:  Extending juvenile court jurisdiction over permanency planning matters in dependency proceedings.

Sponsors:  Senators Stevens, Hargrove and Long.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  Human Services & Corrections:  1/28/2000. 2/4/2000 [DPS].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES & CORRECTIONS

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6389 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

  Signed by Senators Hargrove, Chair; Costa, Vice Chair; Franklin, Long, Patterson and Stevens.

Staff:  Jennifer Strus (786-7484)

Background:  Several years ago, the Legislature added permanent legal custody orders (third party custody) under RCW 26.10 as an allowable permanency plan under the dependency statute.  This change allows a juvenile court to approve a permanent legal custody order entered by the superior court as a permanency plan and dismiss the dependency.

Permanent legal custody orders have not been utilized as a permanent plan as often as they might otherwise be because obtaining a permanent custody order presents an additional step that can be costly.

Summary of Substitute Bill:  The juvenile court hearing a dependency petition has concurrent jurisdiction to hear a permanent custody petition.  The parents, guardians or legal custodians, with the court=s approval, must agree to the entry of a permanent custody order.  Other parties to the dependency may agree to the order.  The petitioner in an RCW 26.10 action who is not a party to the dependency must agree to the entry of the custody order.  In addition, the order must be in the best interests of the child.

If a custody order is entered under RCW 26.10 and the dependency dismissed, DSHS must not continue to supervise the placement.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:  DSHS must not supervise a placement made under an RCW 26.10 petition.  The petitioner in an RCW 26.10 action must agree to the placement.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Not requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  This assists DSHS in moving children into permanent homes more quickly, although there are some concerns about the language.

Testimony Against:  None.

Testified:  Jake Romo, DSHS (pro with concerns).