California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 233 — Foster children: records.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 829, Statutes of 2017.

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 06, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · 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.

  • 4 sponsors

    1 primary, 3 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 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

(1) Existing law provides that parents of currently enrolled or former pupils have an absolute right to access any and all pupil records related to their children that are maintained by school districts or private schools. Existing law prohibits a school district from permitting access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order except as authorized by specified state and federal law. Existing law authorizes foster family agencies with jurisdiction over currently enrolled or former pupils to access records of grades and transcripts, and any individualized education plans developed pursuant to specified law maintained by school districts or private schools of those pupils. This bill would add to the information that may be accessed records of attendance, discipline, and online communication on platforms established by schools for pupils and parents, and any plan adopted pursuant to specified federal law, as provided, and would require that these records be the current or most recent records for the pupil. The bill would additionally authorize a short-term residential treatment program staff responsible for the education or case management of a pupil and a caregiver who has direct responsibility for the care of the pupil, including a certified or licensed foster parent, an approved relative or nonrelated extended family member, or a resource family, as defined, to access this information, and would provide that a caregiver may access this information regardless of whether the caregiver has been appointed as the pupil's educational rights holder pursuant to specified law. The bill would authorize a foster family agency, short-term residential treatment program, or caregiver to review and receive these pupil records for specified purposes. The bill would extend these provisions to include pupil records maintained by county offices of education, charter schools, and nonpublic schools, in addition to school districts and private schools. The bill would require a child's caregiver to be responsible for reviewing and receiving these pupil records for those same purposes. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, if direct communication between a caregiver and an educational rights holder is appropriate, a caregiver who is not the pupil's educational rights holder to notify the pupil's educational rights holder, and, in specified instances, the pupil's social worker, of any educational needs of the pupil that require the educational rights holder's consent or participation. If direct communication between a caregiver and an educational rights holder is inappropriate, the bill would require the pupil's social worker to direct the caregiver to communicate that information with the pupil's social worker or attorney instead of the educational rights holder. (2) Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge 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 and permanent placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. Whenever a court orders a hearing to terminate parental rights to, or to establish legal guardianship of, a dependent child to be held, existing law requires the court to direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment and requires this assessment to include, among other things, a preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, as specified, and including an evaluation of the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status. Existing law further requires the status of every dependent child in foster care to be reviewed periodically as determined by the court but no less frequently than once every 6 months. This bill would require the above evaluation and review to include providing a copy of the complete health and education summary, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. By increasing the duties on county staff, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires, when a child is placed in foster care, the case plan to include a summary of the health and education information or records, including mental health information, of the child. This bill would authorize the case plan to also include the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child, except as specified, and would make other conforming changes. Existing law makes various findings and declarations with regard to foster parents and caregivers, including that caregivers should have certain basic information, including among other things, a plan outlining the child's needs and services, including information on family and sibling visitation. This bill would provide that a caregiver should also have access to a copy of the health and education summary, as specified, and would provide that a caregiver should have knowledge of the importance of the caregiver's role in education, as specified. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to implement the resource family approval process in all counties and with all foster family agencies. Existing law requires counties to be responsible for various implementing tasks, including, among other things, ensuring a resource family applicant completes a minimum of 12 hours of caregiver training, including training on permanence, well-being, and education needs of children. This bill would require counties to ensure that the above training includes, among other things, training on the importance of the caregiver's role in education, as specified. By increasing duties on county staff, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 1332 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1332 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 829, Statutes of 2017.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2925.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 3263.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended.

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (September 1).

  12. August 23 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

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

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED.

  16. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on ED. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 27).

  17. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  18. Referred to Coms. on HUM. S. and ED.

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

  20. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1315.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  21. Published May 26 at 10 a.m.

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

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1179.) (May 25).

  24. Set for hearing May 25.

  25. May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  26. Set for hearing May 15.

  27. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  28. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0. Page 849.) (April 25).

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

  30. Set for hearing April 25.

  31. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.

  32. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  33. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 443.) (March 22).

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

  35. Set for hearing March 22.

  36. March 15 hearing postponed by committee.

  37. Set for hearing March 15.

  38. Referred to Com. on ED.

  39. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 9.

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

Sponsors

  • Beall · Primary
  • Mendoza · Cosponsor
  • Vidak · Cosponsor
  • Wilk · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 3 co-sponsors · 118 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Beall

Co-sponsors (3)

  • Mendoza
  • Vidak
  • Wilk

Not signed on (118)

118 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 118 →

"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 SB233 Beall et al. Concurrence

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 35000
Democratic 5000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Bates — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
De León — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Allen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Newman — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 233 Beall Senate Third Reading By RUBIO

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 56002
Democratic 15000
Republican 6000
Total 77002
% of votes cast 97%0%0%3%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Harper — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Ting — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Chau — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Fong — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chu — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gray — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Holden — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Burke — Yea
Levine — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Not Voting
Obernolte — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Voepel — Not Voting
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12001
Democratic 3000
Republican 1000
Total 16001
% of votes cast 94%0%0%6%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Fong — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gray — Not Voting
Obernolte — Yea
Chau — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

civil-rights labor education
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 233 do?
(1) Existing law provides that parents of currently enrolled or former pupils have an absolute right to access any and all pupil records related to their children that are maintained by school districts or private schools. Existing law prohibits a school district from permitting access to pupil records to a person without written parental consent or under judicial order except as authorized by specified state and federal law. Existing law authorizes foster family agencies with jurisdiction over currently enrolled or former pupils to access records of grades and transcripts, and any individualized education plans developed pursuant to specified law maintained by school districts or private schools of those pupils. This bill would add to the information that may be accessed records of attendance, discipline, and online communication on platforms established by schools for pupils and parents, and any plan adopted pursuant to specified federal law, as provided, and would require that these records be the current or most recent records for the pupil. The bill would additionally authorize a short-term residential treatment program staff responsible for the education or case management of a pupil and a caregiver who has direct responsibility for the care of the pupil, including a certified or licensed foster parent, an approved relative or nonrelated extended family member, or a resource family, as defined, to access this information, and would provide that a caregiver may access this information regardless of whether the caregiver has been appointed as the pupil's educational rights holder pursuant to specified law. The bill would authorize a foster family agency, short-term residential treatment program, or caregiver to review and receive these pupil records for specified purposes. The bill would extend these provisions to include pupil records maintained by county offices of education, charter schools, and nonpublic schools, in addition to school districts and private schools. The bill would require a child's caregiver to be responsible for reviewing and receiving these pupil records for those same purposes. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, it would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require, if direct communication between a caregiver and an educational rights holder is appropriate, a caregiver who is not the pupil's educational rights holder to notify the pupil's educational rights holder, and, in specified instances, the pupil's social worker, of any educational needs of the pupil that require the educational rights holder's consent or participation. If direct communication between a caregiver and an educational rights holder is inappropriate, the bill would require the pupil's social worker to direct the caregiver to communicate that information with the pupil's social worker or attorney instead of the educational rights holder. (2) Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge 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 and permanent placement of a dependent child. Existing law prescribes various hearings, including specified review hearings, and other procedures for these purposes. Whenever a court orders a hearing to terminate parental rights to, or to establish legal guardianship of, a dependent child to be held, existing law requires the court to direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment and requires this assessment to include, among other things, a preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, as specified, and including an evaluation of the child's medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status. Existing law further requires the status of every dependent child in foster care to be reviewed periodically as determined by the court but no less frequently than once every 6 months. This bill would require the above evaluation and review to include providing a copy of the complete health and education summary, as specified. The bill would make conforming changes. By increasing the duties on county staff, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires, when a child is placed in foster care, the case plan to include a summary of the health and education information or records, including mental health information, of the child. This bill would authorize the case plan to also include the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child, except as specified, and would make other conforming changes. Existing law makes various findings and declarations with regard to foster parents and caregivers, including that caregivers should have certain basic information, including among other things, a plan outlining the child's needs and services, including information on family and sibling visitation. This bill would provide that a caregiver should also have access to a copy of the health and education summary, as specified, and would provide that a caregiver should have knowledge of the importance of the caregiver's role in education, as specified. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to implement the resource family approval process in all counties and with all foster family agencies. Existing law requires counties to be responsible for various implementing tasks, including, among other things, ensuring a resource family applicant completes a minimum of 12 hours of caregiver training, including training on permanence, well-being, and education needs of children. This bill would require counties to ensure that the above training includes, among other things, training on the importance of the caregiver's role in education, as specified. By increasing duties on county staff, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 1332 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1332 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 366.21 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by AB 976 to be operative only if this bill and AB 976 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (4) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 233?
SB 233 is sponsored by Beall, Mendoza, Vidak, and Wilk.
What is the current status of SB 233?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 06, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 233?
Track SB 233 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 233

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 233

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →