Family reunification services.

Removed the 5-year lookback requirement: the Senate version required the violent felony conviction to have occurred within the past five years; the enrolled version drops this temporal limitation.

Removed the preponderance-of-evidence findings requirement: the Senate version required courts to find, by a preponderance of evidence, at least one of three specific circumstances (personal use of force or a weapon with a child victim, services likely to endanger the child, or a history of multiple convictions posing current risk) before denying reunification based on a violent felony conviction. The enrolled version eliminates this multi-factor test.

Removed the mandatory reunification mandate: the Senate version required that if the court found the conviction did not disqualify the parent, it SHALL order reunification services unless it made a separate best-interest finding or found another qualifying reason. The enrolled version removes this affirmative duty.

The enrolled version narrows the bill's operative change to a single limitation: the violent felony conviction ground for denying reunification services applies only when the victim was either a child or someone with whom the parent or guardian had a child in common at the time of the offense. This is a simpler, more targeted amendment than the Senate version.

A violent felony conviction can now only disqualify a parent from reunification services if the victim of the offense was either a child or someone with whom the parent had a child in common at the time of the offense. This is a new restriction not present in the Assembly version.

The court must now find by a preponderance of the evidence one or more specific circumstances to deny services: (1) the parent personally used force or a weapon AND a child was the victim, (2) providing reunification services is likely to endanger or cause additional harm to the child, or (3) the parent has multiple other adult convictions in the past 5 years that collectively pose a current risk to the child's safety.

If the court finds the conviction does not disqualify the parent, it is now mandated to order reunification services unless it separately finds by a preponderance of the evidence that reunification is not in the child's best interest or the parent does not qualify for another reason.

Removed the requirement for a caseworker from a community-based organization or nongovernmental organization with family reunification expertise to conduct an individualized assessment before the court could deny services.

Removed the requirement for trauma-informed assessments evaluating the impact of separation and denial of reunification on the family, including social, emotional, and developmental trauma.

Removed the requirement that courts identify and engage families previously denied reunification services due to a violent felony prior to January 1, 2026, contact them to evaluate trauma, and prioritize timely reviews of their petitions for reunification services.

Removed the phased implementation schedule that would have applied the provisions to counties over 500,000 population starting January 1, 2026, and all remaining counties starting January 1, 2027.

Removed the requirement for annual trauma-informed training for judges presiding over cases involving denial of reunification services, and the Judicial Council's obligation to issue an annual public report on compliance and reunification metrics.

Removed the requirement for the State Department of Social Services to submit semiannual reports (April 2026 through January 2027) and annual reports thereafter detailing cost savings from providing reunification services after individualized assessments.

A parent or guardian's violent felony conviction can now only be used to deny reunification services if the conviction occurred within the past five years. Previously, any violent felony conviction regardless of when it occurred could disqualify a parent.

The court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more specified circumstances exist before denying reunification services based on a violent felony conviction. The fact alone of the conviction is explicitly stated to be insufficient basis for denial.

If the court finds the parent's or guardian's conviction does not disqualify them, the court is now required to order reunification services unless it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that reunification is not in the best interest of the child or the parent/guardian does not qualify for another reason. This creates a presumption in favor of reunification.