Foster youth: sexual health education.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when SB 245 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 SB 245.
You're tracking SB 245
We'll email you the moment it moves.
SB 245 — Foster youth: sexual health education.
Last action — June 27 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
3Passed Senate
-
4Passed Assembly
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 requires a county social worker to create a case plan for foster youth within a specified timeframe after the child is introduced into the foster care system. Existing law requires the case plan to include prescribed components, including, among other things, for youth in foster care 14 years of age and older and nonminor dependents, a document that describes the youth's rights with respect to education, health, visitation, and court participation, the right to be annually provided with copies of his or her credit reports at no cost, and the right to stay safe and avoid exploitation. This bill would additionally require, for youth in foster care 10 years of age and older and for nonminor dependents who are enrolled in high school, the case plan to be updated yearly to indicate that the case management worker has verified that the youth has received comprehensive sexual health education, as specified. The bill would also require, for youth in foster care 10 years of age and older and for all nonminor dependents, the case plan to be updated yearly to indicate that the case management worker has provided the youth or nonminor dependent certain information, including, among other things, that he or she may access age-appropriate, medically accurate information about reproductive and sexual health care. By imposing additional duties on county case management workers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires foster care providers to ensure that adolescents who remain in long-term foster care receive age-appropriate pregnancy prevention information, provided that the department develops guidelines that describe the duties and responsibilities of foster care providers and county case managers in delivering pregnancy prevention services and information. This bill would require the department to develop a curriculum for case management workers and foster care providers that addresses certain topics related to sexual and reproductive health care, including, among others, how to document sensitive health information including sexual and reproductive health issues in a case plan. The bill would also require these topics to be addressed in certain additional training, including, among others, training for administrator certification programs for group homes and short-term residential therapeutic programs. 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
- Amended 05/26/17 - Amended Senate Current pdf May 26, 2017
- Amended 04/06/17 - Amended Senate pdf April 06, 2017
- Amended 03/28/17 - Amended Senate pdf March 28, 2017
- Introduced 02/06/17 - Introduced pdf February 06, 2017
- SB245 View text html
Action History
-
June 27 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
-
Referred to Coms. on HUM. S. and JUD.
-
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
-
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 9. Page 1320.) Ordered to the Assembly.
-
Published May 26 at 10 a.m.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 1180.) (May 25).
-
Set for hearing May 25.
-
May 15 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
-
Set for hearing May 15.
-
May 8 hearing postponed by committee.
-
Set for hearing May 8.
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 851.) (April 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Set for hearing April 25.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
-
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 3. Noes 1. Page 625.) (April 4).
-
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.
-
Set for hearing April 4.
-
Referred to Coms. on HUMAN S. and JUD.
-
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 9.
-
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Sponsors
- Leyva · Primary
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 4 voted No
Sponsors (1)
- Leyva
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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 24 | 8 | 0 | 3 |
| Democratic | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 28 | 9 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 70% | 23% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (40)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bates | — | Nay |
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Moorlach | — | Not Voting |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Nay |
| Skinner | — | Yea |
| Wilk | — | Yea |
| Galgiani | — | Yea |
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Fuller | — | Not Voting |
| Allen | — | Yea |
| De León | — | Yea |
| Cannella | — | Yea |
| Atkins | — | Yea |
| Mitchell | — | Yea |
| Portantino | — | Not Voting |
| Hernandez | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Hueso | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Nay |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Dodd | — | Yea |
| Leyva | — | Yea |
| Mendoza | — | Yea |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Morrell | — | Nay |
| Pan | — | Yea |
| Roth | — | Yea |
| Vidak | — | Nay |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Beth Gaines | — | Nay |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Nay |
| Mark Stone | — | Nay |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| McGuire, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Nay |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Nay |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Bradford | — | Yea |
| Hill | — | Yea |
| Nielsen | — | Yea |
| Lara | — | Yea |
| Bates | — | Yea |
| Beall | — | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Hertzberg | — | Yea |
| Moorlach | — | Yea |
| Anderson | — | Nay |
| Monning | — | Yea |
| Wieckowski | — | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Stern, Henry I. | Democratic | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 60% | 20% | 0% | 20% |
How each member voted (5)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Glazer | — | Yea |
| Newman | — | Yea |
| Bill Berryhill | — | Not Voting |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Nay |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does SB 245 do?
- Existing law requires a county social worker to create a case plan for foster youth within a specified timeframe after the child is introduced into the foster care system. Existing law requires the case plan to include prescribed components, including, among other things, for youth in foster care 14 years of age and older and nonminor dependents, a document that describes the youth's rights with respect to education, health, visitation, and court participation, the right to be annually provided with copies of his or her credit reports at no cost, and the right to stay safe and avoid exploitation. This bill would additionally require, for youth in foster care 10 years of age and older and for nonminor dependents who are enrolled in high school, the case plan to be updated yearly to indicate that the case management worker has verified that the youth has received comprehensive sexual health education, as specified. The bill would also require, for youth in foster care 10 years of age and older and for all nonminor dependents, the case plan to be updated yearly to indicate that the case management worker has provided the youth or nonminor dependent certain information, including, among other things, that he or she may access age-appropriate, medically accurate information about reproductive and sexual health care. By imposing additional duties on county case management workers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires foster care providers to ensure that adolescents who remain in long-term foster care receive age-appropriate pregnancy prevention information, provided that the department develops guidelines that describe the duties and responsibilities of foster care providers and county case managers in delivering pregnancy prevention services and information. This bill would require the department to develop a curriculum for case management workers and foster care providers that addresses certain topics related to sexual and reproductive health care, including, among others, how to document sensitive health information including sexual and reproductive health issues in a case plan. The bill would also require these topics to be addressed in certain additional training, including, among others, training for administrator certification programs for group homes and short-term residential therapeutic programs. 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 SB 245?
- SB 245 is sponsored by Leyva.
- What is the current status of SB 245?
- This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” 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 SB 245?
- Track SB 245 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on SB 245
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 SB 245
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →