Johns (SB 290) Act No. 486
Prior law provided 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.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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.
Prior law provided 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.
Prior law provided the department shall request a temporary restraining order pursuant to
prior law, or protective order pursuant to prior law if the department determines that any such
previously ordered visitation or custody would put the child's health and safety at risk.
Prior law provided 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 prior law shall not
independently confer exclusive jurisdiction on the juvenile court in accordance with prior
law.
New law provides that the department shall request a temporary restraining order pursuant
to prior law, or protective order pursuant to prior law, or an instanter safety plan order
pursuant to prior law, if the department determines that any such previously ordered
visitation or custody would put the child's health and safety at risk.
Prior law provided 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 prior law.
New law retains prior law and adds an instanter safety plan order as an additional option
prior to removal of a child in need of care.
Prior law provided 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.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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.
New 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. Prior law provided 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
prior law or protective order pursuant to present law.
Prior law provided 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.
New law retains prior 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 prior law, a protective order pursuant
to prior law, or a safety plan order pursuant to new law.
Prior law provided that upon presentation of the verified complaint, the court shall
immediately determine whether emergency removal is necessary to secure the child's
protection.
New law adds whether the issuance of a safety plan order is necessary to secure the child's
protection.
Prior law provided 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.
Prior law provided 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.
Prior law provided 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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. New 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. New law retains prior law and adds a continued safety plan.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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 prior law.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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.
New 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.
New 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.
New 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
prior law.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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.
New 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.
New 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.
Prior law provided 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. New 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.
Prior law provided that if no petition is filed within the applicable time period, the child shall
be returned to the parent. New law retains prior 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))