Asm. Blanca Rubio

Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, establishes a system of child care and development services for children up to 13 years of age, and requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to implement a plan establishing assigned reimbursement rates, per unit of average daily enrollment, to be paid by the state to provider agencies for the provision of those services. Existing law also provides for an adjustment factor to be applied to units of average daily enrollment if a provider agency serves children who meet specified criteria. This bill would require the application of an adjustment factor of 1.05 for children who are served in a California state preschool program, infants and toddlers who are 0 to 36 months of age and are served in general child care and development programs, or children who are 0 to 5 years of age and are served in a family child care home education network setting funded by a general child care and development program, where early childhood mental health consultation services, as defined, are provided, pursuant to specified requirements. Existing law prohibits reporting a child who meets the criteria for more than one adjustment factor under more than one adjustment factor category. This bill, notwithstanding that prohibition, would require, for a child who meets the criteria for one of specified adjustment factors and for the adjustment factor added by this bill, that the reported child days of enrollment for that child be multiplied by the sum of the specified applicable adjustment factor and 0.05. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 8265.5 of the Education Code proposed by both SB 874 and AB 1840, to be operative only if this bill and one or both of SB 874 and AB 1840 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interests of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether either of the child's parents habitually or continually uses alcohol or illegal drugs. This bill would require the court to make the determination consistent with specified findings. The bill would include in those findings that children have the right to be safe and free from abuse and that domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child's siblings within the previous five years is detrimental to the best interests of the child. In overcoming that presumption, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has committed any further acts of domestic violence. This bill would extend this presumption to a person who has committed domestic violence against another person with whom that party has a specified relationship. The bill would require the court, in determining whether the presumption is overcome, to find that the perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the perpetrator is in the best interests of the child and would specify additional factors that, on balance, are required to support the grant of custody. The bill would require the court to state its reasons for finding that the presumption has been overcome in writing or on the record. Existing law requires a court to grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent unless it is shown that the visitation would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. This bill, instead, would require the court to grant reasonable visitation rights when it is shown that the visitation would be in the best interest of the child, as defined, and consistent with the above provisions for ordering custody. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters, including judges, referees, and mediators, among others, and requires that the training programs include instruction in all aspects of domestic violence. This bill would require the training to include the detriment to children of residing in a home with a person who perpetrates domestic violence and that domestic violence can occur without a party seeking or obtaining a restraining order, without a substantiated child protective services finding, and without other documented evidence of abuse.

Existing law authorizes a court to order spousal support in an amount, and for a period of time, that the court determines is just and reasonable based on the standard of living established during the marriage. In making spousal support awards, the court is required to consider, among other factors, documented evidence of any history of domestic violence between the parties or against the child of either party. This bill would specify that all documented evidence of any history of domestic violence be considered by the court in ordering spousal support, including, but not limited to, issuance of a protective order or a finding by a court during the pendency of a divorce, separation, or child custody proceeding, or other specified proceeding, that the spouse has committed domestic violence.

Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law conditions eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant's mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense. Existing law requires, if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, that the court dismiss the defendant's criminal charges, with a record filed with the Department of Justice indicating the disposition of the case diverted, that the arrest is deemed never to have occurred, and requires the court to order access to the record of the arrest restricted, except as specified. This bill would make defendants ineligible for the diversion program for certain offenses, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, and rape. The bill would authorize a court to require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the defendant will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion, as specified. The bill would also require the court, upon request, to conduct a hearing to determine whether restitution is owed to any victim as a result of the diverted offense and, if owed, to order its payment during the period of diversion. The bill would provide that a defendant's inability to pay restitution due to indigence or mental disorder would not be grounds for denial of diversion or a finding that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms of diversion. The bill would also make technical changes.

Existing law, the Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act, imposes criminal and civil liability on a Member of the Legislature or legislative employee, as defined, who interferes with, or retaliates against, a legislative employee's exercise of the right to make a protected disclosure, which is defined as a good faith allegation made by a legislative employee to specified entities that a Member of the Legislature or a legislative employee has engaged in, or will engage in, activity that may constitute a violation of law or a violation of a legislative standard of conduct. This bill would define "protected disclosure" for purposes of that act to also include a complaint made at the request of a legislative employee and a complaint made against a nonemployee in specified circumstances. Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) , protects and safeguards the right and opportunity of all persons to generally seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination, abridgment, or harassment on account of enumerated protected categories. Existing law also precludes an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person from discharging, expelling, or otherwise discriminating against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under FEHA or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any FEHA proceeding. Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, states that all people in California are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments, no matter their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. Existing law establishes a cause of action for violations of that act. Existing law also separately establishes liability for sexual harassment if a plaintiff proves specified elements, including, among other things, that there is a business, service, or professional relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. This bill would declare that neither house of the Legislature may retaliate against a legislative advocate or employee, as defined, because that person has opposed any practices forbidden under the above provisions, or filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding relating to a complaint of harassment under those provisions. This bill would impose civil liability for a violation of that prohibition. This bill would also require each house of the Legislature to maintain a record of each harassment complaint made to that house for a period of at least 12 years after the complaint is made. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law, the State Civil Service Act, provides for filling certain state positions through the process of examinations and the establishment of eligible lists and promotional lists. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to administer the Personnel Classification Plan for state civil service positions, including the allocation of every position to the appropriate class in the classification plan. This bill would require the Department of Human Resources to, by December 13, 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, evaluate all civil service classifications and prepare a detailed report on gender and ethnicity pay equity in each classification where there is an underrepresentation of women and minorities. The bill would require each state agency to submit specified information to the department about each state civil service certification within the agency. The bill would require the department to prepare a plan for each state agency to attain pay equity if a discrepancy is found and a specified plan to recruit, attract, and retain women and minorities into positions where there is an underrepresentation of those subgroups. The bill would, until January 1, 2030, require the department to submit the report to the Legislature, not later than January 1 of each year, as specified.

Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , approved by the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, regulates the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, testing, processing, sale, and use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes by people 21 years of age and older. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. MAUCRSA authorizes a licensee to advertise and market cannabis and cannabis products subject to specified restrictions, including accurately and legibly identifying the licensee responsible for that content by adding, at a minimum, the licensee's license number, and prohibits a licensee from, among other things, advertising or marketing in a manner that is false or untrue. Under MAUCRSA, each licensing authority is authorized to suspend or revoke a licensee's license for failure to comply with these provisions, among other things. This bill would prohibit a licensee from publishing or disseminating advertisements or marketing of cannabis and cannabis products while the licensee's license is suspended. AUMA authorizes the Legislature to amend by majority vote certain provisions of the act to implement specified substantive provisions, provided that the amendments are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of AUMA. This bill would declare that its provisions implement specified substantive provisions of AUMA and are consistent with and further the purposes and intent of AUMA.

(1) Existing law provides for the implementation of the resource family approval program, which replaces the multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families. Existing law requires foster care providers to have resource family approval by December 31, 2019, and makes existing foster care certifications, licenses, and approvals inoperative as of that date, except as specified. Existing law requires public and private child placement agencies to provide existing foster care providers with certain information regarding the resource family approval program, including, among other things, notice that in order to care for a foster child, resource family approval is required by December 31, 2019. This bill would extend the deadline by which foster care providers are required to have resource family approval to December 31, 2020, and extend the operation of current certifications, licenses, and approvals until that date. The bill would authorize an applicant who withdraws a resource family application before its approval or denial to resubmit the application within 12 months, as provided. The bill would also require public and private placing agencies to provide existing foster care providers with the information regarding the resource family approval program as described above, including the revised deadline, by July 1, 2019. The bill would make conforming changes to existing law to reflect the extension of the resource family approval deadline described above, thereby making certain foster care placements made prior to January 1, 2021, eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care payments, Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children payments, and respite care. (2) Existing law authorizes a county to place a child with a resource family applicant who has successfully completed the home environment assessment prior to the completion of a permanency assessment only if a compelling reason for the placement exists based on the needs of the child. Existing law, in these cases, requires the permanency assessment to be completed within 90 days of placement, unless good cause exists. Existing law requires the county to document extenuating circumstances for any delay in those cases, generate a timeframe for the completion of the permanency assessment, and report specified information to the State Department of Social Services regarding these delays. The bill would instead require that the permanency assessment be completed within 90 days of any application to become a resource family, unless good cause exists, and would further expand the above-mentioned county duties to instances in which a child is placed with a resource family applicant on an emergency basis, as specified. (3) Existing law requires that preferential consideration be given to a request by a relative of a child who has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court for placement of the child with the relative, as specified. Existing law requires the county social worker, in determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider certain factors, including the safety of the relative's home. Existing law requires the relative's home to first be assessed for safety and for the relative to be subject to a specified criminal records clearance in order for the relative to be considered appropriate to receive placement of a child on an emergency basis. This bill would require the same safety assessment and criminal records clearance to be conducted in order for a relative to be considered appropriate to receive placement of a child following a disposition hearing. (4) By increasing the duties of county officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 1517 and 1517.1 of the Health and Safety Code and Sections 16519.5 and 18360 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 1930 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1930 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1) The Outdoor Advertising Act regulates the placement of advertising signs adjacent to and within specified distances of certain highways. The act prohibits advertising displays from being placed or maintained on property adjacent to a section of a freeway that has been landscaped, with certain exceptions, and defines "landscaped freeway" for these purposes to mean a section or sections of a freeway that is now, or later may be, improved by the planting at least on one side or on the median of the freeway right-of-way of lawns, trees, shrubs, flowers, or other ornamental vegetation requiring reasonable maintenance. This bill would narrow the prohibition of the act to instead prohibit, except as specified, placing or maintaining advertising displays on property adjacent to a 1,000-foot or greater section of a freeway that has been landscaped with at least an average width of 20 feet, as defined, of landscaping or that includes trees on Department of Transportation-owned property at the same or elevated grade of the main-traveled way if the advertising display is designed to be viewed primarily by persons traveling on the main-traveled way of the landscaped freeway. The bill would require the department to determine the average width using a specified formula, would provide that all existing classifications are to remain in effect until the department receives a request for a new classification review in accordance with its regulations, and would authorize the department to charge a fee not to exceed $500, as specified, to conduct a classification review. (2) The Outdoor Advertising Act provides that planting for the purpose of soil erosion control; traffic safety requirements, including light screening; reduction of fire hazards; or traffic noise abatement does not change the character of a freeway to a landscaped freeway. This bill would expand that exemption by including planting for the purposes of covering soundwalls or fences. (3) The Outdoor Advertising Act does not prohibit a governmental entity from entering into a relocation agreement or the Department of Transportation from allowing any legally permitted advertising display to be increased in height at its permitted location or relocated if a noise attenuation barrier has been erected in front of the display or if a building, construction, or structure, as specified, has been or is then being erected by any government entity that obstructs the display's visibility within 500 feet of the display and the relocation of the display or increase in the height of the display would not cause a reduction in federal aid highway funds or an increase in the number of displays within the jurisdiction of a governmental entity that does not conform to the act. This bill would expand that exception by instead providing that the act does not prohibit any governmental entity from entering into a relocation agreement or the department from allowing any lawfully erected display to be increased in height at its permitted location or to be relocated provided the height increase or relocation would not cause a reduction in federal aid highway funds or an increase in the number of displays within the state that does not conform to the act. The bill would authorize a relocated advertising display to be converted to a message center pursuant to a relocation agreement. The bill would require the department to issue a permit, without any additional consideration, for any display that is being placed pursuant to a relocation agreement with another government entity if the relocated display conforms with specified provisions.

Existing law allows a court to issue an order restraining an individual from possessing a firearm while the order is in effect. Existing law allows the court to issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order on an ex parte basis if the possession of a firearm by the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger. Existing law requires a law enforcement officer who requests a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order to memorialize the order of the court on the form approved by the Judicial Council if the order is obtained orally. Existing law requires the petition for the temporary order to be obtained by submitting a written petition to the court, unless time and circumstances do not permit the submission of a written report, in which case existing law allows the order to be issued in accordance with procedures for obtaining an oral search warrant. This bill would instead require an officer who requests a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order to sign a declaration under penalty of perjury reciting the oral statements provided to the judicial officer and to memorialize the order of the court on the form approved by the Judicial Council if the request is made orally. The bill would allow a judicial officer to issue a temporary order orally based on the statements of the law enforcement officer and would allow a temporary order to be obtained in writing if time and circumstances permit. Because the declaration would be required to be signed under penalty of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the definition of a crime. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.