Juvenile court: visitation.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 926 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 926.
You're tracking AB 926
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 926 — Juvenile court: visitation.
Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the Assembly.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
LowHow often bills like it became law.
-
In Committee
Current position in the legislative process.
-
3 sponsors
1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (3 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 2 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between a child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require, at the initial petition hearing, the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or legal guardian, setting forth the frequency and duration most conducive to quality family time, and whether the visitation must be supervised. The bill would require the court to order contact between the parent and child commencing within 72 hours. The bill would remove the above-described prohibition prohibiting a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child's welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child's physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would require, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. The bill would also require social workers or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds granting this discretion would be contrary to the child's safety. Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing. This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian's visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child's welfare. By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would impose 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.
Bill Text
What changed in the latest version
1 added · 1 removedPlain-language change summary
The bill AB 926 has had a small change where some text has been added, while another part has been removed. This means that the legislators or staff may have decided to clarify or update information for better understanding. Such adjustments can be important as they help ensure the bill accurately reflects the goals and intentions of the new law. Overall, these edits aim to improve the legislative process and make the bill clearer for everyone involved.
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBillText Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites |Track Bill | Version:
View plain text versions (2)
- Introduced 02/19/25 - Introduced Current pdf February 19, 2025
- AB926 View text html
Action History
-
From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
-
Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.
-
Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Isaac G. Bryan · Cosponsor
- Mike A. Gipson · Primary
- Lisa Calderon · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Gipson, Mike A. Democratic
Co-sponsors (2)
- Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic
- Calderon, Lisa Democratic
Not signed on (119)
119 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 119 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (6)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Celeste | Democratic | Yea |
| Castillo, Leticia | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 9 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 75% | 0% | 0% | 25% |
How each member voted (12)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Essayli | — | Not Voting |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Not Voting |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Not Voting |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 926 do?
- Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between a child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require, at the initial petition hearing, the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or legal guardian, setting forth the frequency and duration most conducive to quality family time, and whether the visitation must be supervised. The bill would require the court to order contact between the parent and child commencing within 72 hours. The bill would remove the above-described prohibition prohibiting a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child's welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child's physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would require, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. The bill would also require social workers or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds granting this discretion would be contrary to the child's safety. Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing. This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian's visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child's welfare. By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would impose 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.
- Who sponsors AB 926?
- AB 926 is sponsored by Bryan, Isaac G. (Democratic), Gipson, Mike A. (Democratic), and Calderon, Lisa (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 926?
- This bill is in committee in the Assembly. Introduced February 19, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
- Where can I track AB 926?
- Track AB 926 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 926
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 926
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →