Juvenile court jurisdiction: services and benefits.
Summary
Existing law provides that a minor may be adjudged a dependent child or a ward of the juvenile court under specified circumstances. Existing law authorizes the court to place a minor who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian in foster care, among other placements. Existing law provides for the termination of the juvenile court jurisdiction when the minor reaches a specified age. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Social Services to develop statewide standards for the implementation and administration of the Independent Living Program. Existing regulations specify eligibility requirements for the Independent Living Program, and require county social workers and probation officers to determine eligibility for the program in conjunction with the preparation of a Transitional Independent Living Plan. An existing regulation requires county social workers and probation officers to ensure that foster or probation youth are given appropriate information about the opportunity to participate in the Independent Living Program. This bill would require a probation officer or parole officer, whenever the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a ward, or upon release of a ward from a facility that is not a foster care facility, to provide to the person a written notice stating that the person is a former foster child and may be eligible for the services and benefits that are available to a former foster child through public and private programs, and information that informs the person of the availability of assistance to enable the ward to apply for, and gain acceptance into, federal and state programs that provide independent living services and benefits to former foster children for which the person is or may be eligible. The bill would make related findings and declarations. By imposing additional duties upon probation officers, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law establishes that a case plan, which is required to be adopted by the county for each child receiving child welfare services, is the foundation and central unifying tool in child welfare services. Existing law requires that a case plan include information about a parent's incarceration in a jail or prison during the time that a minor child of that parent is involved in dependency care. This bill would delete duplicative provisions of that law. The bill also would incorporate additional changes in Section 16501.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 12 and SB 1353, to be operative only if this bill and one or both of the other bills are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, and this bill is chaptered last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Jun 2010
Senate Passage
May 2010
Assembly Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 3, 2010
Signed Sep 30, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 27, 2010 · Assembly Aug 26, 2010
How they voted
33–0
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 38
Aug 27, 2010
D
Democratic25
88% Yea
R
Republican13
84% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
38
Key actions
8
Committee
9
Amendments
2
Sep 30, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by Governor.
legislature
Aug 27, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (33-0-5)
senate
Aug 27, 2010
Introduced
Senate concurs in Assembly amendments. (Ayes 34. Noes 0. Page 4977.) To enrollment.
upper
Aug 26, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (64-1-3)
assembly
Aug 12, 2010
Lower · Passed
(August 12 amended measure version corrected August 16.)
lower
Jun 30, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 30).
lower
Jun 30, 2010
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 1.)
lower
Jun 16, 2010
Lower · Passed
(Heard in committee on June 15.)
lower
Jun 16, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 4, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3427.)
upper
Apr 20, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3308.) Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 14, 2010
Committee
From committee: Do pass, but first be re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 3162.) Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Mar 17, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and PUB. S.
upper
Mar 10, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 3, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
CL
Carol Liu
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about SB 945
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand SB 945. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline