California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 977 — Juveniles.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 11, 2014. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 9 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 the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge certain children to be dependents 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 his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent, unless the court finds that the return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment, or substantial danger, to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. This bill would specify that the fact that a parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with his or her parent is not, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment or substantial danger and would additionally require the court to consider at those hearings whether the child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility. Prior to disposition in a dependency proceeding, existing law requires the court to receive in evidence the social study of the child made by the social worker, any study or evaluation made by a child advocate appointed by the court, and any other relevant and material evidence. Existing law requires the social study or evaluation to include a factual discussion of certain subjects. Existing law also requires the status of every dependent child in foster care to be reviewed periodically, and authorizes the court to require a social worker or any other agency to render periodic reports, as specified. Existing law requires each supplemental report under those provisions to include a factual discussion of certain subjects. This bill would require the social study or evaluation and the supplemental report described above to include a discussion of whether a child may be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with the parent. By imposing additional duties on county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which, pursuant to a combination of federal, state, and county funds, aid on behalf of eligible children is paid to foster care providers. Existing law provides that certain services may be provided under the program to include mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment services. This bill would specify that those treatment services may include treatment at a residential substance abuse treatment facility that accepts families. 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. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 33. Noes 3. Page 4401.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 5908.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (July 2).

  9. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  10. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  12. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  13. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 5. Page 3696.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  14. Ordered to third reading.

  15. Withdrawn from committee.

  16. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  17. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  18. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 3706.) (May 23).

  19. Set for hearing May 23.

  20. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  21. Set for hearing May 19.

  22. Re-referred to Com. on APPR. pursuant to Joint Rule 10.5.

  23. Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.

  24. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3403.) (May 6).

  25. Set for hearing May 6.

  26. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 3213.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  27. Set for hearing April 22.

  28. Re-referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and JUD.

  29. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  30. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  31. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 14.

  32. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Liu · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 2 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Liu

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

Unfinished Business SB977 Liu Concurrence

Passed 33 Yea · 3 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 31303
Democratic 2001
Total 33304
% of votes cast 83%8%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lara — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Roth — Yea
Wright — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Huff — Yea
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Knight — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Yee — Not Voting
Hancock — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 977 Liu Senate Third Reading By WIECKOWSKI

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 70002
Democratic 4000
Republican 3000
Total 77002
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Holden — Yea
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Chau — Yea
Allen — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Levine — Yea
Logue — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Fox — Not Voting
Frazier — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
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 Yea
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
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 29 Yea · 5 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 27505
Democratic 2001
Total 29506
% of votes cast 73%13%0%15%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Wright — Not Voting
Wyland — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Not Voting
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Torres — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Yee — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 5 Yea · 1 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 4101
Total 5101
% of votes cast 71%14%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
De León — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Monning — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic 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 SB 977 do?
Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge certain children to be dependents 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 his or her parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine temporary placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. When a court orders the removal of a child from the physical custody of his or her parent, existing law generally requires the court to order the return of the child to the physical custody of his or her parent, unless the court finds that the return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment, or substantial danger, to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. This bill would specify that the fact that a parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with his or her parent is not, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment or substantial danger and would additionally require the court to consider at those hearings whether the child can be returned to the custody of his or her parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility. Prior to disposition in a dependency proceeding, existing law requires the court to receive in evidence the social study of the child made by the social worker, any study or evaluation made by a child advocate appointed by the court, and any other relevant and material evidence. Existing law requires the social study or evaluation to include a factual discussion of certain subjects. Existing law also requires the status of every dependent child in foster care to be reviewed periodically, and authorizes the court to require a social worker or any other agency to render periodic reports, as specified. Existing law requires each supplemental report under those provisions to include a factual discussion of certain subjects. This bill would require the social study or evaluation and the supplemental report described above to include a discussion of whether a child may be returned to the custody of a parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with the parent. By imposing additional duties on county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which, pursuant to a combination of federal, state, and county funds, aid on behalf of eligible children is paid to foster care providers. Existing law provides that certain services may be provided under the program to include mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment services. This bill would specify that those treatment services may include treatment at a residential substance abuse treatment facility that accepts families. 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 SB 977?
SB 977 is sponsored by Liu.
What is the current status of SB 977?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 11, 2014. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 977?
Track SB 977 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 977

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 SB 977

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →