California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2573 — Foster care: transition jurisdiction.

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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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

Existing law establishes transition jurisdiction for the juvenile court, and generally provides that minors who are wards in foster care placement, and certain nonminors who are eligible for aid, and who satisfy other specified criteria, including that their rehabilitative goals have been met and juvenile court jurisdiction over them as a ward is no longer required, are within the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Existing law provides that a nonminor who was subject to an order for foster care placement at the time he or she attained 18 years of age and who has not attained 21 years of age, for whom the court has dismissed transition jurisdiction, dependency jurisdiction, or delinquency jurisdiction, but has retained general jurisdiction, may petition the court for a hearing to resume dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward. This bill would authorize a court to assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a nonminor who attained 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement without consideration of whether the rehabilitative goals of the nonminor, as set forth in the case plan in place at the time the court dismissed delinquency jurisdiction, have been met. By increasing the duties of local entities related to, and as a result of, the juvenile court assuming or resuming transition jurisdiction, 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, 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. In committee: Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: to consent calendar. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  7. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 5113.)

  8. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  9. From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 14).

  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  11. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

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

  13. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  14. Referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  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 2573 STONE Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 73 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 66006
Democratic 4000
Republican 3000
Total 73006
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Not Voting
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Allen — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Holden — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Logue — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Campos — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Hall — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Levine — Yea
Salas — Yea
Medina — Yea
Chau — Yea
Melendez — Not Voting
Bonilla — Not Voting
Chesbro — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Nestande — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Williams — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fox — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
V. Manuel Pérez — Not Voting
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, to Consent Calendar.

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
Bigelow — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Holden — Yea
Linder — Yea
Pan — Yea
Weber — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Campos — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Wagner — 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 2573 do?
Existing law establishes transition jurisdiction for the juvenile court, and generally provides that minors who are wards in foster care placement, and certain nonminors who are eligible for aid, and who satisfy other specified criteria, including that their rehabilitative goals have been met and juvenile court jurisdiction over them as a ward is no longer required, are within the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Existing law provides that a nonminor who was subject to an order for foster care placement at the time he or she attained 18 years of age and who has not attained 21 years of age, for whom the court has dismissed transition jurisdiction, dependency jurisdiction, or delinquency jurisdiction, but has retained general jurisdiction, may petition the court for a hearing to resume dependency jurisdiction over a former dependent or assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a former delinquent ward. This bill would authorize a court to assume or resume transition jurisdiction over a nonminor who attained 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement without consideration of whether the rehabilitative goals of the nonminor, as set forth in the case plan in place at the time the court dismissed delinquency jurisdiction, have been met. By increasing the duties of local entities related to, and as a result of, the juvenile court assuming or resuming transition jurisdiction, 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, 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 2573?
AB 2573 is sponsored by Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 2573?
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 2573?
Track AB 2573 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2573

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 2573

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →