The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05101994 - 1.22 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s L Contra s t. FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator r� Costa County �,. DATE: May 3, 1994 °°s;+-�---n `* SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 2140 (Honeycutt) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION to AB 2140 by Assemblywoman Kathleen Honeycutt, which would require a social worker to recuse himself or herself in specified circumstances and eliminate immunity from civil liability in specified cases . BACKGROUND: Under current law, a public employee is not liable for injury caused by instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of employment, regardless of whether the public employee acts maliciously and without probable. cause. Existing law exempts employees of defined child protective agencies from liability for reporting known or suspected instances of child abuse. Existing law also exempts from liability, persons who make good faith reports pursuant to provisions on child welfare services . Assemblywoman Honeycutt has introduced AB 2140 which, as amended March 21, 1994, would do all of the following: 1 . Require a social worker responsible for the investigation or initiation of a juvenile dependency petition to �recuse himself or herself in a case where the social worker has had sexual contact with any party to the dependency proceeding. 2 . Require a social worker responsible for the investigation or initiation of a juvenile dependency petition to recuse himself or herself in a case where a friend or relative of the social worker is adopting or attempting to adopt a child who is the subject of the pending dependency pr F ceeding. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ONi 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED �WQ'14 10 199 !f Contact: PHIL BATCHEL ,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY Pa.4, 1/0�. DEPUTY -2- 3 . Eliminate civil immunity in instances where the social worker has had sexual contact with any party to the dependency proceeding and has knowingly failed to recuse himself or herself from the case. 4 . Eliminate civil immunity in instances where a friend or relative of the social worker is adopting or attempting to adopt a child who is the subject of the pending dependency proceeding in which the social worker is the investigator or evaluator. 5 . Eliminate civil immunity in instances where the social worker has been convicted of perjury with regard to the dependency proceeding before the court. It is feared that the enactment of AB 2140 would have a chilling effect on child welfare workers who are entrusted to protect abused and neglected children. The bill leaves room for numerous frivolous lawsuits aimed at intimidating child welfare workers from exercising their best judgment about the protection of abused and neglected children. For example, language in the bill regarding sexual contact or adoption by a "friend or relative" of a child welfare worker is quite vague and requires no threshold burden of proof as a precondition of filing a lawsuit. Child welfare workers should not have to worry about fear of a civil lawsuit each time they decide whether to remove a vulnerable child from a dangerous home. This bill could also result in a great deal of County resources being wasted as more and more time is spent defending workers against lawsuits aimed at revenge or intimidation. We believe it would be irresponsible to divert more child welfare worker time away from the real business of protecting children and preserving families . It is also believed that the current system provides adequate recourse to anyone who feels aggrieved by a dishonest worker. - The parent has the ability to make the case to the juvenile court judge responsible for determining the disposition of the case in question. All parents have the right to counsel in dependency proceedings and all actions of child welfare workers are reviewed by juvenile court judges . County welfare departments do discipline and even terminate workers if their actions warrant that response. Also, a parent has the right to sue the County for negligent supervision of a child welfare worker. The County Welfare Directors Association and the Social Services Director recommend that the Board of Supervisors oppose AB 2140 and this office concurs with that recommendation. cc: County Administrator Social Services Director County Counsel Risk Management Les Spahnn, Heim, Noack & Spahnn SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: C. L. Van Marter DATE: April 7, 1994 FROM: Perfec o Villarreal SUBJECT: AB 2140 (Honeycutt) as Amended March 21, 1994 - OPPOSE Attached to this memo is a communication which we received from the County Welfare Directors Association/Frank Mecca requesting that we write letters to our representatives OPPOSING AB 2140. It is imperative that the protection which is provided to our child welfare social workers not be impaired in any way. These workers focus on protecting children from physical abuse or neglect; having to be concerned about lawsuits being filed against them for doing their job is a burden which we ought not to lay on them. This legislation would place an added burden on the courts and counsel (as well as on County finances) having to defend workers who are called upon daily to make judgments regarding the care and protection of children. Please place this issue on next possible Board agenda so that Contra Costa County's voice can be heard in OPPOSITION to this proposed legislation. PV:SJB r DATE: April 6, 1994 _ :k ' TO: CWD's FROM: Frankt� RE: Opposition to AB 2140 #of PAGES: 5 Attached is a copy of the latest version of AB 2140 and CVNDA's letter of opposition to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee_ It has not been set for hearing, but it should be heard in late April. I think we have a pretty good shot of defeating the bill, or dt least amending out all language that relates to soclal worker abiilly. We need as many counties ties as possible to send letters to the Committee urging members to vote"NO"on AB 2140. Feel free to use the letter attached. As always, custombzed letters with the perspective of your individual county are always more effective. You should try to get your letters in as soon as possible. Address your letter to Chairman Roberti with CC's to the rest of the members of the Committee and to Assemblywoman Honeycutt. No other dUs are required Cignore the rest of the CC's on the CWDA tetter), but feel free to CC whomever you wish. A Cali to a member(or staff) representing your county is also helpful. Addresses and telephone numbers are below. Thank you very much. Democrats: s Chairman David Roberti, Room 2032,State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814(915)445-8390 Senator Charles Calderon, Room 5066, State Capitol, (91:'6)327-8315 Senator Bill Lockyer, Room 205, State Capitol, (916)445 6571 Senator Milton Marks, Room 5035,State Capitol, (916)445-1412 Senator Robert Presley, Room 5114,State Capitol, (916)415-9781 Senator Nicholas Petris, Room 5080,State Capitol, (916);445-6577 Senator Art Torres, Room 2080, State Capitol, (916)445-3456 Senator Diane Watson. Room 4040, State Capitol, (916)445-5215 Republicans: Senator Tim Leslie, Room 4081, State Capital, (916)4451,5788 Senator Rob Hurtt, Room 2054,State Capitol, (916)445-5831 Senator Cathie Wright, Room 4052,State Capitol, (916)44.5-8873 Author. + Assemblywoman Kathleen Honeycutt, Room 4009, State tapitol, (916)445-8102 April 6, 1994 Honorable David Roberti, Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee Room 2032, State Capital Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Roberti: RE:AB 2140(Honeycutt)as Amended March 29, 1994—OPPOSE The County Welfare Directors Association of California has taken a position of OPPOSE on AB 2140 by Assemblywoman Honeycutt which would e9minaW a child welfare worker's immunity from civil fiabiffity in certain circumstances. Current case law piovides child welfare workers acting as quasi rosecutorial officers of the court the same immunity from civil liability shared by prosecutors of criminal actions. GWDA believes that this bill is unnecessary and, even as amended, would have a chilling effect on child welfare workers who are entrusted to protect 'abused and neglected children- Tice language in the bill still leaves morn for numerous frivolous lawsuits aimed at intimidating child welfare workers from exercising their best judgement aboL&the protection of abused and neglected children. For example, language in the bill regarding sexual contact or adoption by a "friend or relative!'of a child welfare worker is quite vague and requires no threshold burden of proof as a precondition of firing a lawsuit. Child welfare workers should not have to worry about fear of a Civil lawsuit each time they decide whether to remove a vulner'able child from a dangerous home. County welfare directors have expressed a great deal of concern about the difflaft they will have recruiting professional social workers into the field of public child welfare if the immunity standard is eroded. This bill would also result in a great deal of state and county resources being wasted as more and more social worker time is spent defending workers against lawsuits aimed at revenge or intimidation. In an era of extremely tight budgets—and tie specter of another multimillion dollar Budget deficit—we believe it would be irresponsible to diveit more child welfare worker time away from the real business of protecting children and preserving families. This measure also raises the possibility of workers collectively bargaining for some sortW malpractice insurance,which would also increase cost to government_ Finally, the current system provides adequate recourse;to anyone who feels aggrieved by a dishonest worker. First the parent has the ability to make the case to the juvenile court judge responsible for determining the disposition of the case in;question. All parents have the right to counsel in dependency proceedings, and all actions of child welfare workers are reviewed by juvenile court judges. Individuals may bring complaints to county welfare departments,all of which have a system for investigating complaints and disciplining'workers. County welfare departments do discipline and even terminate workers if their actions warrant that response. Thankfully, misconduct by child welfare workers is a rare exception—it fact stipulated to by the author. Also, a parent has the right to sue a county welfare departme6t or county—"the deep packet"--for U4,vol kt4 10;4D -&A.L Vv negligent supervision of a child welfare worker. Because this measure is unnecessary,would swing the system away from its primary mission of protecting children,and would be very costly to the state aM counties,we strongly urge your"NO" vote on AB 2140. SincerelY, Frank J. Mecca Executive Director cx Honorable Kathleen Honeycutt Members, Senate Judiciary Committee Alison Anderson,Committee Consultant Patricia Wynne, Office of the Senate Speaker Pro Tempore Will Lockyar Jute MacDonald,Assistant Secretary, Health and Welfare Agency Jo Frederick, CDSS Margaret Pena,C-SAC Alan Davenport SEIU Jonathon Lightman, NASW County Caucus AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 1994 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 27, 1994 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 19, 1994 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JANUARY 10, 1994 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1993-94 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2140 Introduced by Assembly Members Honeycutt, Haynes, Andal, Conroy, Knowles, Morrow, and Richter March 5, 1993 An act to add Section 8271.7 to the Geyer-"ffient 16513.5 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to liability. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2140, as amended, Honeycutt. Liability for child protective activities. Under existing law, a public employee is not liable for injury caused by instituting or prosecuting any judicial or ti administrative proceeding within thes cope of employment, `' `,rrMaiss regardless of whether the public employee acts maliciously and without probable cause. Existing law exempts employees of defined child protective agencies from liability for reporting known or suspected instances of child abuse. Existing law exempts from liability, persons who make good faith reports pursuant to provisions on child welfare services. This bill would require a social worker responsible for the investigation or initiation of juvenile dependency petitions to recuse himself or herself from specified cases, and would provide that a social worker does not have civil immunity in specified instances. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. 95 80 AB 2140 — 2 — The people of the State of California do enact as follows. 1 SEGTION I Seetien 821.7 is added to the 2 Geyer-fiffient cede, to 3 82-1 4 SECTION 1. Section 16513.5 is added to the Welfare 5 and Institutions Code, to read.- 6 ead.6 16513.5. (a) A social worker responsible for the 7 investigation or initiation of juvenile dependency 8 petitions under Article 6 (commencing with Section 300) 9 of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Welfare aed 10 instittiti cede, shall recuse himself or herself from 11 acting in a particular dependency case where either of 12 the following applies: 13 (1) The social worker has had sexual contact, as 14 defined in Section 43.93 of the Civil Code, with any party 15 to the dependency proceeding. 16 (2) A friend or relative of the social worker is adopting 17 or attempting to adopt a child who is the subject of the 18 pending dependency proceeding. 19 (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 20 social worker responsible for the investigation or 21 initiation of juvenile dependency petitions does not have 22 civil immunity in instances where any of the following 23 applies: 24 (1) The social worker has had sexual contact, as 25 defined in Section 43.93 of the Civil Code, with any party 26 to the dependency proceeding and has knowingly failed 27 to recuse himself or herself from the -case. 28 (2) (A) A friend or relative of the social worker is 29 adopting or attempting to adopt a child who is the subject 30 of a dependency proceeding in which the social worker 31 is the investigator ; evai tater., of reporter- or evaluator. 32 (B) "Friend"for the purpose of this paragraph, means 33 a person with whom the social worker is having or has 34 had either of the following types of contact. 35 (i) A significant social tie, including persons with 36 whom there has been sexual intimacy, or social contacts 37 outside of club or religious affiliations. 38 (ii) Contact with on either an infrequent or regular 95 100 l — 3 — AB 2140 s; 1 basis for nonwork related matters. 2 (3) The social worker has been convicted of perjury Ote 3 with regard to the dependency proceeding before the 4 court. Ifare the ency 300) fiftd from er of t, as darty Ming f the .w, a 1 or have wing O I, as party =ailed ter is bject :)rker i tor. leans r has with i tacts gular 95 100 95 100