The original instrument and the following digest, which constitutes no part of the
legislative instrument, were prepared by Angela L. De Jean.
DIGEST
Johns (SB 290)
Present law provides that "safety plan" means a short-term plan for the purpose of assuring a
child's immediate health and safety by imposing conditions for the continued placement of the
child with a custodian and terms for contact between the child and his parents or other persons.
Proposed law provides that "safety plan" means a plan for the purpose of assuring a child's health
and safety by imposing conditions for the child to safely remain in the home, or, after a child has
been removed from the home, for the continued placement of the child with a custodian and
terms for contact between the child and his parents or other persons.
Present law provides that reports of high and intermediate levels of risk shall be investigated
promptly. The investigation shall include a preliminary investigation as to the nature, extent, and
cause of the abuse or neglect and the identity of the person actually responsible for the child's
condition. The preliminary investigation shall include an interview with the child and his parent
or parents or other caretaker and shall include consideration of all available medical information
provided to the department pertaining to the child's condition.
Present law provides that such preliminary investigation shall also include an immediate
assessment of any existing visitation or custody order or agreement involving the alleged
perpetrator and the child.
Present law provides the department shall request a temporary restraining order pursuant to
present law, or protective order pursuant to present law if the department determines that any
such previously ordered visitation or custody would put the child's health and safety at risk.
Present law provides that the admission of the investigator on school premises or access to the
child in school shall not be denied by school personnel. However, the request for a temporary
restraining order or a protective order in accordance with this present law shall not independently
confer exclusive jurisdiction on the juvenile court in accordance with present law.
Proposed law provides that the department shall request a temporary restraining order pursuant to
present law, or protective order pursuant to present law, or an instanter safety plan order pursuant
to present law, if the department determines that any such previously ordered visitation or
custody would put the child's health and safety at risk.
Present law provides that after investigation, the local child protection unit shall make one of the
following determinations: the report appears to be justified, in that there is evidence of child
abuse, or neglect, and a protective order would eliminate the need for removal of the child in
order to protect him from further abuse, in which case it may apply for a temporary restraining order or protective order authorized by present law.
Proposed law retains present law and adds an instanter safety plan order as an additional option
prior to removal of a child in need of care.
Present law provides that a peace officer, district attorney, or employee of the local child
protection unit of the department may file a verified complaint alleging facts showing that there
are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is in need of care and that emergency removal is
necessary to secure the child's protection.
Proposed law includes the implementation of a safety plan as an option available to a peace
officer, district attorney, or employee of the local child protection unit of the department to
include in a verified complaint alleging facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the child is in need of care to secure the child's protection.
Present law provides that after the complaint has been filed, the parent is without authority to
place the child with any individual or institution except the department until legal custody is
returned to the parent.
Proposed law provides that after the complaint has been filed, the parent is without authority to
place the child with any individual or institution except the department until legal custody is
returned to the parent or the safety plan is terminated.
Present law provides that the court shall immediately determine whether reasonable efforts have
been made by the department to prevent or eliminate the need for the child's removal, including
whether the department has requested a temporary restraining order pursuant to present law or
protective order pursuant to present law.
Present law provides that in making and determining reasonable efforts, the child's health and
safety shall be the paramount concern. However, the court may authorize the removal of the child
even if the department's efforts have not been reasonable.
Proposed law retains present law and provides that if removal of the child is requested, the court
shall immediately determine whether reasonable efforts have been made by the department to
prevent or eliminate the need for the child's removal, including whether the department has
requested a temporary restraining order pursuant to present law, a protective order pursuant to
present law, or a safety plan order pursuant to proposed law.
Present law provides that upon presentation of the verified complaint, the court shall immediately
determine whether emergency removal is necessary to secure the child's protection.
Proposed law adds whether the issuance of a safety plan order is necessary to secure the child's
protection.
Present law provides that if the court determines that the child's welfare cannot be safeguarded without removal, the court shall immediately issue a written instanter order directing that the
child be placed in the provisional custody of a suitable relative or other suitable individual
capable of protecting the health and safety of the child or taken into the custody of the state.
Present law provides that the order shall contain written findings of fact supporting the necessity
for the child's removal in order to safeguard his welfare. If the court determines that emergency
removal is not necessary to secure the child's protection, the court shall issue a written order
denying the request for custody.
Present law provides that if custody is given to a suitable relative or other suitable individual, the
safety plan shall be made an order of the court and shall direct the provisional custodian to
adhere to the conditions of the safety plan. The safety plan shall set forth conditions of contact
with parents or other third parties.
Proposed law removes the provision that if the court determines that emergency removal is not
necessary to secure the child's protection, the court shall issue a written order denying the request
for custody.
Proposed law provides that if, upon request by the state, the court determines that with the
issuance of a safety plan order that the child's welfare can be safeguarded without removal, the
court shall immediately issue a written instanter order directing compliance with the terms of the
safety plan.
Proposed law provides that the order shall contain written findings of fact supporting the
necessity for the safety plan to safeguard his welfare. The safety plan shall set forth conditions as
determined by or agreed upon by the state as necessary for the protection of the child's health and
safety while remaining in the home.
Proposed law provides that if the court determines that emergency removal or the issuance of a
safety plan order is not necessary to secure the child's protection, the court shall issue a written
order denying the request for custody or for the implementation of a safety plan.
Proposed law provides that any peace officer having territorial jurisdiction over the child is
authorized to serve a summons upon a parent or caretaker, commanding him to appear at court
for a continued custody or continued safety plan hearing.
Present law provides that the summons shall expressly notify the parent or caretaker that the
court may issue a binding order in his absence if he fails to appear. A copy of the summons shall
be filed in the record as proof of service.
Proposed law provides that an employee of the local child protection unit shall provide written
notice to the parents or caretaker of the date, time, and location of the continued custody or
continued safety plan hearing. Proposed law retains present law and adds a continued safety plan.
Proposed law provides that in exceptional circumstances, the facts supporting the issuance of an instanter order and the exceptional circumstances may be relayed orally, including telephonically,
to the judge and his order directing that a child be taken into custody or, upon request by the
state, that a safety plan order be implemented may be issued orally.
Proposed law provides that in such cases, an affidavit containing the information previously
relayed orally, including telephonically, shall be filed with the clerk of the court within 24 hours
and a written order shall be issued.
Proposed law provides that the written order shall include the court's findings of fact supporting
the necessity for the child's removal or the implementation of a safety plan order in order to
safeguard his welfare and, if the child has been removed, shall determine the child's custodian in
accordance with present law.
Proposed law provides that if the court ordered the implementation of a safety plan, the
department shall promptly notify the parents or caretaker of the nature of the allegations, the
conditions of the safety plan, and the time and place of a continued safety plan order hearing.
Present law provides that if a child is not released to the care of his parents, a hearing shall be
held by the court within three days after the child's removal or entry into custody.
Proposed law provides that if a safety plan has been ordered, a hearing shall be held by the court
within three days from the issuance of the safety plan order, unless the parents are in agreement
with the safety plan. The parents' signature on the safety plan shall constitute evidence of their
agreement with the plan.
Proposed law provides that if it appears from the record that the parent cannot be found or has
been served a summons or notified by the department to appear at the continued custody or
continued safety plan hearing and fails to appear at the hearing, then the hearing may be held in
the parent's absence.
Proposed law provides that at this hearing, the state has the burden to prove the existence of a
ground for continued custody or the continued implementation of a safety plan pursuant to
present law.
Proposed law provides that the court may authorize, with the consent of the state, continued
implementation of a safety plan prior to the adjudication if there are reasonable grounds to
believe the child is in need of care and that the continued implementation of the safety plan is
necessary for his safety and protection. The safety plan shall continue to set forth conditions as
determined or agreed upon by the state as necessary for the protection of the child's health and
safety while remaining in the home.
Present law provides that the court shall order the appointment of counsel for the child and the
appointment of a curator for any parent who is an absentee. The court may order the appointment
of counsel for the parents or the appointment of a court-appointed special advocate. Proposed law provides that if the court finds that the child can safely remain in or return to the
home with the implementation of a safety plan developed and agreed upon by the state pending
adjudication, the court may order compliance with the conditions of the safety plan.
Proposed law provides that the court shall order the appointment of counsel for the child and the
appointment of a curator for any parent who is an absentee. The court may order the
appointment of counsel for the parents or the appointment of a court-appointed special advocate.
Present law provides that if a child is continued in custody prior to adjudication, or if a protective
order is issued, a petition requesting that the child be adjudicated in need of care shall be filed
within 30 days of the hearing to determine continued custody.
Proposed law provides that if the child remains in the home and a safety plan order has been
issued, a petition requesting that the child be adjudicated in need of care shall be filed within 45
days of the issuance of the safety plan order.
Present law provides that if no petition is filed within the applicable time period, the child shall
be returned to the parent. Proposed law retains present law and adds that the safety plan shall
automatically be terminated.
Effective August 1, 2014.
(Amends Ch.C. Arts. 603(27), 612(A)(2), 615(B)(2), 619, 620, 624(A), (C)(1) and (D),
625(A)(intro para) 627(E) and (F), and 632(A) and (C); adds Ch.C. Arts. 626(E) and 627(G))