SB 1009

(1) Existing law requires a court to determine whether a minor in custody will be released from, or detained in, custody, considering, among other things, whether it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor or reasonably necessary for the protection of the person or property of another and whether continuance in the home is contrary to the minor’s welfare. This bill would instead require the court to order the release of a minor from custody unless the court finds, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the minor has violated an order of the juvenile court, has escaped from the commitment of the juvenile court, or that it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor or for the protection of the person of another that the minor be detained or that the minor is likely to flee to avoid jurisdiction of the court. The bill would prohibit the court from ordering that a minor be detained in a juvenile hall unless it makes a finding that a less restrictive alternative to detention in the juvenile hall is unsuitable. The bill would also require the court, upon request, to reconsider whether continued detention in the juvenile hall is necessary based on current information and consistent with these provisions. (2) Existing law prohibits a ward or dependent child from being taken from the physical custody of a parent or guardian unless the court makes specified findings. Under existing law, if a minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor’s parent or guardian as a result of an order of wardship pursuant to specified provisions, the order is required to specify the period of imprisonment. Existing law authorizes the court to commit a minor to a juvenile hall, juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp. This bill would prohibit a minor from being removed from the physical custody of the minor’s parent or guardian as a result of an order of wardship unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. The bill would require the court to consider all relevant and material evidence, as specified, and consider whether reasonable efforts were made to eliminate the need for removal or continued removal from the home, and whether services could be provided to enable the child’s parent or legal guardian to obtain assistance that may be needed to effectively provide the care and control necessary for the child to return home in lieu of an order of removal. The bill would require the court to state the reasons for its decision on the record, as specified.