(1) Under existing law, a child may come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and become a dependent child of the court in certain cases, including when the child is abused, a parent or guardian fails to adequately supervise or protect the child, as specified, or a parent or guardian fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law generally subjects any person under 18 years of age who commits a crime to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge that person to be a ward of the court. Existing law requires the responsible local agency to make a diligent effort in all out-of-home placements of dependent children to place siblings together in the same placement, and to develop and maintain sibling relationships. This bill would extend that requirement to all out-of-home placements of wards in foster care. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law permits any person to petition the juvenile court to assert a sibling relationship with a dependent child or a child who is the subject of a petition for adjudication as a dependent child and make certain requests, including a request for visitation with the dependent child. This bill would also authorize a dependent child or a nonminor dependent to request visitation with a sibling who is in the physical custody of a common legal or biological parent. The bill would authorize a court to grant those requests for visitation, unless it is determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. This bill would authorize any person, including a ward, a transition dependent, or a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court, to petition the court to assert a relationship as a sibling and make certain requests, including a request for visitation, with a sibling who is, or is the subject of an adjudication as, a ward of the juvenile court, as specified. The bill would authorize a ward, transition dependent, or nonminor dependent to assert a relationship as a sibling and request visitation with a nondependent sibling who is in the physical custody of a common legal or biological parent. The bill would authorize a court to grant those requests for visitation, unless it is determined by the court that visitation is contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings. (3) Existing law requires, in order to maintain ties between the parent or guardian and any siblings and a child placed in foster care, an order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for visitation between the parent or guardian and the child and for visitation between any siblings and the child. This bill would additionally require an order placing a child in foster care and ordering reunification services to provide for review of the reasons for any suspension of sibling visitation at each periodic review hearing and for a requirement that, in order for the suspension to continue, a court make a renewed finding that sibling interaction is contrary to the safety or well-being of either child. (4) Existing law requires that the status of a dependent child in foster care be reviewed periodically, but no less frequently than once every 6 months. Existing law requires a court to determine specified information at that hearing, including whether the child has any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the frequency and nature of the visits between siblings. Existing law requires a social worker or child advocate appointed by the court, when preparing certain social studies or evaluations, to include specified information, including whether the child has any siblings under the court's jurisdiction, and, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the frequency and nature of the visits between siblings. This bill would additionally require, if any siblings exist and are not placed with the child, the court to determine, and require a social worker or child advocate appointed by the court to include in those social studies or evaluations, whether any visits between the siblings are supervised or unsupervised, and if visits are supervised, a discussion of the reasons why the visits are supervised, and what needs to be accomplished in order for the visits to be unsupervised, a description of the location and length of any visits, and any plan to increase visitation between siblings. By requiring county social workers to include additional information in certain social studies or evaluations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) Existing law requires, after a minor is adjudged to be a ward of the court, the court to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. Existing law requires the probation officer to prepare a case plan if placement in foster care is recommended by the probation officer, or if the minor is already in foster care placement or pending placement. Existing law requires the probation officer to include, among other things, scheduled visits between the minor and his or her family and an explanation if no visits are made. This bill would additionally require the probation officer to include specified information relating to the child's siblings. By imposing additional duties on probation officers, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 358.1 and 366.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 977, that would become operative only if this bill and SB 977 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. The bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 16002 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 1460, that would become operative only if this bill and SB 1460 are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. The bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 361.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, proposed by SB 977 and SB 1460, that would become operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. (7) 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the California Community Colleges, under the administration of the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, as one of the segments of public postsecondary education in this state. Existing law requires the board of governors to appoint a chief executive officer, to be known as the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges. Existing law establishes community college districts, administered by governing boards, throughout the state, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction to students at the community college campuses maintained by the districts. Existing law requires community colleges to offer instruction through, but not beyond, the 2nd year of college and authorizes community colleges to grant associate degrees in arts and science. This bill would, commencing January 1, 2015, authorize the board of governors, in consultation with the California State University and the University of California, to establish a statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program at not more than 15 community college districts, with one baccalaureate degree program each, to be determined by the chancellor and approved by the board of governors. The bill would prohibit each participating district from offering more than one baccalaureate degree program within the district, as specified. The bill would require a district baccalaureate degree pilot program to commence by the beginning of the 2017–18 academic year, and would require a student participating in a baccalaureate degree pilot program to complete his or her degree by the end of the 2022–23 academic year. The bill would require participating community college districts to meet specified requirements, including, but not limited to, offering baccalaureate degree programs and program curricula not offered by the California State University or the University of California, and in subject areas with unmet workforce needs, as specified. This bill would also require the governing board of a participating community college district to submit certain items for review by the chancellor and approval by the board of governors, including, among other things, the administrative plan for the baccalaureate degree pilot program and documentation of consultation with the California State University and the University of California. The bill would provide that the Legislative Analyst's Office shall conduct both a statewide interim evaluation and a statewide final evaluation of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program implemented under this article, as specified, and report to the Legislature and Governor, in writing, the results of the interim evaluation on or before July 1, 2018, and the results of the final evaluation on or before July 1, 2022. The bill would provide that on or before March 31, 2015, the board of governors shall develop, and adopt by regulation, a funding model for the support of the statewide baccalaureate degree pilot program, as specified. This bill would make these provisions inoperative on July 1, 2023, and would repeal the provisions on January 1, 2024.
Existing law authorizes the defendant or the people, in cases where the defendant has been charged with a serious felony, as defined, or in a case of domestic violence, to have a witness examined conditionally, as specified, if there is evidence that the life of the witness is in jeopardy. Existing law specifies the information required to be stated in the affidavit applying to examine a witness conditionally, including the nature of the offense charged. This bill would authorize the defendant or the people to apply for an order that the witness be examined conditionally when the defendant has been charged with human trafficking and there is evidence that the victim or material witness has been or is being dissuaded by the defendant or a person acting on behalf of the defendant, by intimidation or physical threat, from cooperating with the prosecutor or testifying at trial. This bill would also allow a court to examine a victim or material witness conditionally if the court finds there is a reasonable basis to believe that the witness will not attend the trial because he or she is under the direct control of the defendant or another person involved in human trafficking and, by virtue of this relationship, the defendant or other person seeks to prevent the witness or victim from testifying. The bill would conform the affidavit requirements for applying to examine a witness conditionally.
Existing law establishes state hospitals for the care, treatment, and education of mentally disordered persons. These hospitals are under the jurisdiction of the State Department of State Hospitals, which is authorized by existing law to adopt regulations regarding the conduct and management of these facilities. Existing law requires each state hospital to develop an incident reporting procedure that can be used to, at a minimum, develop reports of patient assaults on employees and assist the hospital in identifying risks of patient assaults on employees. Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, including acute psychiatric hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health. A violation of these provisions is a crime. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2015, and subject to available funding, authorize the State Department of State Hospitals to establish and maintain pilot enhanced treatment programs (ETPs) , as defined, for the treatment of patients who are at high risk of most dangerous behavior, as defined, and when safe treatment is not possible in a standard treatment environment. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to approve, on or after July 1, 2015, an ETP, which meets specified requirements and regulations, as a supplemental service for an acute psychiatric hospital that submits a completed application and is operated by the State Department of State Hospitals. The bill would authorize a state hospital psychiatrist or psychologist to refer a patient to an ETP for temporary placement and risk assessment upon a determination that the patient may be at high risk for most dangerous behavior. The bill would require the forensic needs assessment panel (FNAP) to conduct a placement evaluation to determine whether the patient clinically requires ETP placement and ETP treatment can meet the identified needs of the patient. The bill would also require a forensic needs assessment team (FNAT) psychologist to perform an in-depth violence risk assessment and make a treatment plan upon the patient's admission to an ETP. The bill would require the FNAP to conduct a treatment placement meeting with specified individuals prior to the expiration of 90 days from the date of placement in the ETP to determine whether the patient may return to a standard treatment environment or the patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment. If the FNAP determines that the patient clinically requires continued ETP treatment, the bill would require the FNAP to certify the patient for further ETP treatment for one year, subject to FNAP reviews at least every 90 days, as specified. The bill would require the FNAP to conduct another treatment placement meeting prior to the expiration of the one-year certification of ETP placement to determine whether the patient may return to a standard treatment environment or be certified for further ETP treatment for another year. The bill would also require, if the FNAP determines that the patient requires continued ETP placement, that the patient's case be referred to a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist outside of the State Department of State Hospitals for independent review, that a hearing be conducted, and notice given, as specified. The bill would require the State Department of State Hospitals to monitor the ETPs, evaluate outcomes, and report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature. Because this bill would create a new crime, it imposes a state-mandated local program. 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.
Existing law provides that if a defendant in a criminal proceeding is found mentally incompetent, the trial or judgment shall be suspended until the person becomes mentally competent. Existing law provides that the court shall order that the mentally incompetent defendant be delivered by the sheriff to a state hospital for the care and treatment of the mentally disordered, as directed by the State Department of State Hospitals, or to any other available public or private treatment facility approved by the community program director that will promote the defendant's speedy restoration to mental competence, or placed on outpatient status as specified. Existing law further specifies commitment proceedings to include circumstances for the voluntary and involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication. This bill would require the court to consider opinions developed by examining medical professionals during the inquiry determining mental competence when the court is determining if the defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding the administration of antipsychotic medication. Existing law provides that if the treating psychiatrist certifies that antipsychotic medication has become medically necessary and appropriate for the defendant, antipsychotic medication may be administered to the defendant for a maximum of 21 days, provided, however, that, within 72 hours of the certification, the defendant is provided a medication review hearing before an administrative law judge to be conducted at the facility where the defendant is receiving treatment. This bill would authorize a court to extend the administrative law judge's order authorizing involuntary medication for 14 days beyond the 21-day certification period upon a finding of good cause or by stipulation of the parties. The bill would authorize the district attorney, county counsel, or representative of any facility where a defendant found incompetent to stand trial is committed, to petition the court for an order to administer involuntary medication. Existing law provides that an order by the court authorizing involuntary medication of the defendant is valid for one year. Existing law requires the court to review the order 6 months after it is made to determine if the grounds for the authorization remain. Existing law requires the medical director of the state hospital or other treatment facility to which the defendant is confined to make a written report to the court and the community program director for the county or region of commitment, or a designee, concerning the defendant's progress toward recovery of mental competence, within 90 days of commitment, and thereafter, at 6-month intervals or until the defendant becomes mentally competent. This bill would require the court to review its order authorizing involuntary medication at the time of review of the initial progress report and in conjunction with the 6-month intervals described above. The bill would provide that within 60 days of the expiration of the one-year involuntary medication order, the district attorney, county counsel, or representative of the facility where the defendant is being treated may petition the committing court for a one-year renewal, and would require the petition to include the basis for involuntary medication. The bill would require notice of the petition to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the district attorney, and would require the court to hear and determine whether the defendant continues to meet the criteria for involuntary medication. The bill would require the 90-day and 6-month reports described above regarding progress towards competence to also address whether the administration of antipsychotic medication remains necessary. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1370 of the Penal Code, proposed by AB 2625 and SB 1412, that would become operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and become effective January 1, 2015, and this bill is enacted last.
(1) Under existing law, when the Department of Motor Vehicles determines that an applicant is lawfully entitled to a driver's license, the department is required to issue that license to the applicant. Existing law specifies the contents of a driver's license and requires the application for a driver's license or identification card to contain a space for an applicant to indicate whether he or she has served in the Armed Forces of the United States and to give his or her consent to be contacted regarding eligibility to receive state or federal veterans' benefits. This bill would, commencing November 11, 2015, allow an in-person applicant for a driver's license or identification card to request the driver's license or identification card be printed with the word "VETERAN." The applicant would be required to present verification of veteran status to the Department of Motor Vehicles, on a form developed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in consultation with the California Association of County Veterans Service Officers and the Department of Motor Vehicles. The bill would require county veterans service offices to verify an applicant's veteran status for these purposes, as specified. The department would be required to print the word "VETERAN" on the face of a driver's license or identification card issued to a person who makes that request and presents that verification to the department. (2) Existing law establishes certain fee amounts for the applications for, and renewal of, driver's licenses and identification cards. This bill would require the department to charge an additional one-time fee of $5 to a person who requests that the person's driver's license or identification card be designated as provided above.
(1) Under existing law, the segments of the public postsecondary education system in the state include the University of California, which is administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, which is administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, which are administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Existing law exempts a student of the California Community Colleges or the California State University who was a member of the Armed Forces of the United States stationed in this state on active duty for more than one year immediately prior to being discharged from paying nonresident tuition for the length of time he or she lives in the state after being discharged up to the minimum time necessary to become a resident. Existing law also exempts one of those students if he or she is enrolled, or intending to enroll, at a campus of the California Community Colleges or as an undergraduate at a campus of the California State University from paying nonresident tuition for up to one year if he or she files an affidavit with the institution stating that he or she intends to establish residency in California as soon as possible. Existing law requires a student to use this exemption within 2 years of being discharged. Existing law prohibits a former member of the Armed Forces who received a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge from receiving an exemption from paying nonresident tuition under either of the provisions described above. Existing law provides that the statutory provisions relating to student residency requirements for public postsecondary education apply to the University of California only to the extent that the regents act, by resolution, to make these provisions applicable. The bill, notwithstanding the requirements of existing law as referenced above, would require the California Community Colleges and the California State University, and request the University of California, to update and adopt policies no later than July 1, 2015, regarding tuition rates for eligible veterans and their eligible dependents to ensure conformity to, and compliance with, a specified federal statute and the requirements of existing law as described above. To the extent that this provision would impose new duties on community college districts, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) 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. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law authorizes a court to issue specified protective orders upon a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Existing law requires the court to consider issuing those protective orders in cases in which the defendant is charged with a crime of domestic violence. Existing law provides that in determining whether good cause exists to issue those orders in domestic violence cases, the court may consider the underlying nature of the offense charged and information provided to the court pursuant to a criminal history search, as specified. Existing law also requires the court, in cases in which the defendant was convicted of a crime of domestic violence, to consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim for a period of up to 10 years. For the purposes of these provisions, domestic violence includes abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. The violation of a restraining order issued pursuant to these provisions is a crime. This bill would, for the purposes of these provisions, expand the definition of domestic violence to include abuse perpetrated against a child of a party to the domestic violence proceedings or a child who is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, as specified, or against any other person related to the defendant by consanguinity or affinity within the 2nd degree. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 136.2 of the Penal Code, proposed by AB 1498 and AB 1850, that would become operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are chaptered and become effective January 1, 2015, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes every person unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense, to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus for specified reasons, including when false evidence that is substantially material or probative on the issue of guilt or punishment was introduced against the person at any hearing or trial relating to his or her incarceration. This bill would provide, for purposes of a writ of habeas corpus, that false evidence includes opinions of experts that have either been repudiated by the expert who originally provided the opinion at a hearing or trial or that have been undermined by later scientific research or technological advances. The bill would state that its provisions do not create additional liabilities, beyond those already recognized, for an expert who repudiates his or her original opinion or whose opinion has been undermined by later scientific research or technological advancements.
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act authorizes a judicial officer to issue a protective order after notice and a hearing for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and sexual abuse and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved, based on an affidavit showing reasonable proof of past abuse. The act defines domestic violence as abuse perpetrated against specified persons, and further defines abuse within that context. Existing law requires, under certain circumstances, the clerk of the court to submit the proof of service of a protective order directly into the Department of Justice Domestic Violation Restraining Order System. This bill would instead authorize the issuance of a protective order after notice and a hearing for the purpose of preventing acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved. The bill would provide that, in determining whether to grant or deny a protective order, the length of time since the most recent act of abuse is not, by itself, determinative. The bill would also require the trial court, if the court denies a petition to issue a protective order, to provide a brief statement of the reasons for its decision either in writing or on the record. Existing law authorizes the court to issue a mutual order enjoining the parties from specific acts of abuse if both parties personally appear, each party presents written evidence of abuse or domestic violence, and the court makes detailed findings of fact indicating that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and that neither party acted primarily in self-defense. This bill would provide that, for the purposes of these provisions, a court should consider specified provisions relating to dominant aggressors in determining if both parties acted primarily as aggressors.