HOUSE BILL REPORT

SSB 6309

BYSenate Committee on Children & Family Services (originally sponsored by Senators Kiskaddon, Bailey and West)

Revising rules for dependency proceedings.

House Committe on Human Services

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendment.  (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 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES FEBRUARY 24, 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:

AMENDED BILL:  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 circumstances exist which must be proved by the party requesting the continuance based upon a preponderance of the evidence.  The hearing must be scheduled by the court on an expedited basis.

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 which must be based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO SUBSTITUTE:  A continuance may only be granted under exceptional circumstances which must be shown by the party requesting the continuance.  A dependency may only be continued beyond two years if clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists.

Fiscal Note:      Available.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Senator Bill Kiskaddon, Original Sponsor; Karen Tvedt, Department of Social and Health Services; Pat Thibaudeau, Child Haven; and Margie Reeves, Washington Association for the Education of Young Children.

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.  "Best interests" should not be the standard for developing permanency plans nor in decisions continuing the dependency.