Is California law to protect kids backfiring?

Can a nearly 40-year-old law meant to protect children from abusive parents and caregivers do more harm than good? Some advocates — who were once victims of violence themselves — argue that it can.

Like most states, Calmatters contributor ChrisAnna Mink explains, California has a “failure to protect” law that authorizes child welfare agencies to remove children when they believe an abused parent cannot ensure their kids’ safety. Neglect or emotional abuse is often the reason why children become dependents of the court under failure to protect laws, including when domestic violence is involved.

But because California’s law is vague compared to other states, social workers have broad discretion to decide when to remove kids from their families. At times, this can spare them from further trauma, or even save their lives.

• Kelly Callahan, director of the Kids In the Dependency System clinic at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center: “Children who have witnessed violence between their caretakers can have (post traumatic stress disorder)…. They react the same way as children who have been abused.”

Separating children from their families, however, can create its own kind of trauma. It can disrupt a child’s developmental ability to form attachments; research shows that a secure relationship with a caring adult, such as the non-abusive parent, can build resiliency for a child.

For her story, ChrisAnna spoke with current and former social workers, domestic violence policy experts and advocates, state lawmakers and four mothers who lost children because of a failure to protect order.

Those mothers include Marie, a 36-year-old who said she was being punished for her partner’s abuse after the Los Angeles child welfare agency took her children away. Marie’s parents were able to adopt the children and she eventually left her now ex-husband. But the separation, which is still ongoing, causes her anguish.

• Marie: “Right now the victims are seen just like a perpetrator…. My family would’ve been a lot different if we had more time.”

Calls to reform the law, such as clarifying that being a victim of domestic violence — similar to how being homeless or living in poverty — is not sufficient basis for charging the parent with neglect, have been slow to advance. After all, rescinding, or even modestly tweaking, a policy intended to protect a child can carry bad optics. 

But there have been some attempts: Two years ago, Democratic state Sen. Susan Rubio of West Covina authored an unsuccessful bill to compel the state to study domestic violence in the child welfare system, telling colleagues at the time that the law “fails to recognize” the trauma of a parent “who is a domestic violence survivor.”

Other organizations, such as the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, also have looked at the failure to protect law, but it isn’t calling for significant changes.

• Krista Colon, the partnership’s director: “It’s an issue we’ve tried to look at a couple of ways, but what makes sense statewide is tricky.

For more on California’s domestic violence law, read ChrisAnna’s story. Watch Marie talk about her case in a video by ChrisAnna and CalMatters’ assistant visuals editor Adriana Heldiz on our YouTube channel. And read about ChrisAnna and the reporting for this story from our engagement team.

California’s hold on the U.S. House speakership ended when Rep. Kevin McCarthy — who had succeeded Rep. Nancy Pelosi when Republicans took control after the 2022 election — was unceremoniously booted in October by members of his own caucus.

And Wednesday, McCarthy made crystal clear he’s done with Congress, announcing that he will not seek reelection to his Bakersfield seat and will resign by the end of the year.

As CalMatters’ Joe Kieta reports, that will likely set off a mad scramble for the seat. And it could cause more political musical chairs if a sitting state legislator decides to go for the 20th Congressional District seat. 

Joe handicaps some possible candidates, and there are a couple to watch: Assemblymember Vince Fong, McCarthy’s former district director, and former Rep. Devin Nunes, who could plot a return to Congress. 

One announced candidate, MAGA acolyte David Giglio, warned that McCarthy is “still looking to wield power and influence behind the scenes through a handpicked successor.”  

A reminder of next steps: The deadline for candidates seeking a full term to file is Dec. 13, according to the Secretary of State’s office. Because McCarthy is stepping down after the candidate filing deadline, it’s up to Gov. Gavin Newsom whether to call a special election to fill the remainder of the term until a new representative takes office in January 2025. So far, Newsom’s office isn’t guaranteeing he will. 

In a video announcing his decision, McCarthy said he’s proud of his accomplishments, including helping to elect a record number of Republican women, veterans and minorities. He said he would never give up fighting for America’s ideals, but “it is time to pursue my passion in a different arena.”

• McCarthy, in the video: As the son of a firefighter from Bakersfield, my story is the story of America. For me, every moment came with a great deal of devotion and responsibility.”

Speaking of the election, there’s a new poll out and it’s good news for Gov. Newsom’s mental health initiative.

In the latest poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, two-thirds of likely voters said they would vote yes on Proposition 1 on the March primary ballot. It’s the governor’s proposal to reroute nearly one-third of money raised by a 1% tax on millionaires (roughly $1 billion annually) to housing programs. The dual measure also includes a $6.4 billion bond to add 10,000 psychiatric treatment beds in California; 51% of voters said it’s a “good time” to borrow.

A group opposing the measure disputed the poll results, saying the question doesn’t use the official ballot title and summary and doesn’t include cost estimates.

Still, this support for Prop. 1, which focuses on providing housing and treatment options for unhoused people with serious mental illness, may be explained by another poll result — 64% say that homelessness is a big problem in their part of the state, and seven in 10 say the lack of affordable housing is a major factor contributing to homelessness. 

And on Wednesday, the California Business Roundtable said it’s endorsing Prop. 1 “as part of a comprehensive policy approach to addressing the homelessness crisis in California.” The California Chamber of Commerce joined in support. Anda the ballot measure also already has the backing of the California Teachers Association and the Service Employees International Union California.

For the upcoming U.S. Senate election, Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter remain the top two candidates, similar to previous surveys. Schiff led with 21%, and did particularly well among those age 45 and older, while Porter netted 16%. With 10% in the poll, Republican candidate and former L.A. Dodgers Steve Garvey edged out Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee (8%) for third place. 

The poll is the latest evidence that California Republicans still support former President Donald Trump: 56% prefer him in the GOP presidential primary, which would be enough to win him all of the state’s delegates. Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley trails in second at 13% and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (who last week debated Gov. Newsom) is in third at 12%.

And while a little more than half of likely voters are “less enthusiastic” than usual to vote in November, President Joe Biden led Trump by 24 percentage points (54% to 30%). 

The poll, conducted Nov. 9-16, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points among 1,113 likely voters surveyed. 

From CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher: 

In the staring match between San Francisco and state housing regulators, the City by the Bay just blinked.

On Tuesday, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed legislation sponsored by Mayor London Breed to overhaul the city’s famously convoluted housing approval process.  

The 9-2 vote was taken under regulatory duress. In October, California’s housing department released a damning audit of San Francisco’s housing policy, with a checklist of “required” reforms. After the board failed to take up the mayor’s proposed overhaul late last month, the California Housing and Community Development Department issued a very public warning. 

The possible consequences for further inaction included: 

• “Ineligibility or delay in receiving state funds” for housing and transportation programs;
• Possible legal action and court-imposed financial penalties;
• Revocation of the state’s approval of San Francisco’s housing plan, opening the city up to the development free-for-all known as the “builder’s remedy.”

San Francisco’s new ordinance, which formally needs a second vote and the mayor’s signature before becoming law, doesn’t address every one of the state audit’s complaints. It also includes a few added restrictions to limit demolition of historic buildings and those protected by rent-control. 

• David Zisser, the state housing department’s assistant deputy director: “While an encouraging first step, HCD is still evaluating the latest amendments…HCD also looks forward to receiving the City’s response…explaining how it has implemented other overdue required actions.”

Cities and counties across the state have spent the last two years racing to cobble together “housing elements” — plans meant to show how they will permit enough housing to accommodate state-set production goals. 

Now that a majority of those plans have received the state’s regulatory a-okay, it remains an open question just how aggressively California housing regulators plan to ensure that cities and counties actually make good on those promises.

If San Francisco is anything to go by, the answer seems to be “pretty aggressively.”

That’s welcome news to the city’s state senator, Democrat Scott Wiener, a former supervisor and now one of its sharpest critics on housing policy.

• Wiener, in a statement: The vote “by the Board of Supervisors, combined with our work at the state level, is the beginning of a new day for housing in our City…I congratulate the Board of Supervisors for seeing the need for change and working in partnership with the State.”