Juvenile proceedings: competency.
Summary
Existing law authorizes, during the pendency of any juvenile proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court to express a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires proceedings to be suspended if the court finds substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor's competency. Upon suspension of proceedings, existing law requires the court to order that the question of the minor's competence be determined at a hearing. Existing law requires the court to appoint an expert, as specified, to evaluate whether the minor suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental immaturity, or other condition and, if so, whether the condition or conditions impair the minor's competency. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to, among other things, expand upon the duties imposed upon the expert during his or her evaluation of a minor whose competency is in doubt, as specified. The bill would authorize the district attorney or minor's counsel to retain or seek the appointment of additional qualified experts with regard to determining competency, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court relating to the qualifications of those experts, as specified. The bill would require the minor's competency to be determined at an evidentiary hearing, except as specified, and establish a presumption of competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is incompetent. If the minor is found incompetent and the petition contains only misdemeanor offenses, the bill would require the petition to be dismissed. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency unless the court finds that competency cannot be achieved within the foreseeable future, would authorize the court to refer the minor to treatment services to assist in remediation, and would require the court to consider appropriate alternatives to juvenile hall confinement, as specified. The bill would require the presiding judge of a juvenile court, the probation department, the county mental health department, and other specified entities to develop a written protocol describing the competency process and a program to ensure that minors who are found incompetent receive appropriate remediation services. By imposing additional duties on local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also make conforming changes. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2017
Committee Review
Aug 2018
Assembly Passage
May 2017
Senate Passage
Aug 2018
Signed into Law
Sep 2018
Introduced Feb 17, 2017
Signed Sep 30, 2018
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
30
Key actions
10
Committee
13
Amendments
5
Sep 30, 2018
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 29, 2018
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 50. Noes 21. Page 6904.).
lower
Aug 28, 2018
Lower · Passed
From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (August 28).
lower
Aug 28, 2018
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.
lower
Aug 27, 2018
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 17, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 1.) (August 16).
upper
Aug 6, 2018
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jun 26, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 20, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
Jun 11, 2018
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
May 24, 2018
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
upper
May 14, 2018
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
May 10, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 18, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 2, 2017
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (May 2).
lower
Mar 29, 2017
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 28, 2017
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 27, 2017
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 19, 2017
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Mark Stone
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 1214
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 1214. 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