California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 2391 — Dependent children: placement.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Under existing law, a child who is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or parents in dependency proceedings may be placed with a parent, relative, legal guardian, or other specified persons or in specified placement homes or facilities. Existing law gives preferential consideration to a request by a relative of the dependant child for placement of the child with the relative, as specified. Existing law requires the county social worker and the court to consider certain factors in determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, including, among others, the best interest of the child and the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, as specified. Existing law requires that, subsequent to a specified hearing on the proper disposition to be made of the child, whenever a new placement of the child must be made, consideration for placement to again be given to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who will fulfill the child's reunification or permanent plan requirements. This bill would require the county social worker and the court, when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider the above-described factors on a case-by-case basis. This bill also would require that consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to the disposition hearing described above be given again without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made. By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court, effective January 1, 2016, that implements these provisions in regard to the consideration of relatives for placement subsequent to the disposition hearing described above. 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.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  3. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  4. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 5191.)

  5. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  6. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 23).

  7. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  8. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  9. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  12. Read second time and amended.

  13. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 8).

  14. Referred to Coms. on HUM. S. and JUD.

  15. Read first time.

  16. From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

  17. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"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.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 2391 CALDERON Assembly Third Reading

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 71001
Democratic 3001
Republican 3000
Total 77002
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fox — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Allen — Yea
Daly — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Hall — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Levine — Yea
Logue — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chau — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Conway — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Williams — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15000
Republican 1000
Democratic 1000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Weber — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Linder — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2391 do?
Under existing law, a child who is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or parents in dependency proceedings may be placed with a parent, relative, legal guardian, or other specified persons or in specified placement homes or facilities. Existing law gives preferential consideration to a request by a relative of the dependant child for placement of the child with the relative, as specified. Existing law requires the county social worker and the court to consider certain factors in determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, including, among others, the best interest of the child and the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, as specified. Existing law requires that, subsequent to a specified hearing on the proper disposition to be made of the child, whenever a new placement of the child must be made, consideration for placement to again be given to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who will fulfill the child's reunification or permanent plan requirements. This bill would require the county social worker and the court, when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider the above-described factors on a case-by-case basis. This bill also would require that consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to the disposition hearing described above be given again without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made. By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court, effective January 1, 2016, that implements these provisions in regard to the consideration of relatives for placement subsequent to the disposition hearing described above. 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.
Who sponsors AB 2391?
AB 2391 is sponsored by Calderon, Lisa (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2391?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2391?
Track AB 2391 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2391

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2391

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →