California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 689 — Juvenile proceedings: competency.

Last action — From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

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

This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 authorizes, during the pendency of any juvenile proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court to express a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires proceedings to be suspended if the court finds substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires the court to appoint an expert, as specified, to evaluate whether the minor suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental immaturity, or other condition and, if so, whether the condition or conditions impair the minor's competency. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to, among other things, expand upon the duties imposed upon an expert during his or her evaluation of a minor whose competency is in doubt, as specified. The bill would authorize the district attorney or minor's counsel to retain or seek the appointment of additional qualified experts with regard to determining competency, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court relating to the qualifications of those experts, as specified. The bill would also add provisions that would require a minor's competency to instead be determined at an evidentiary hearing, and would establish a presumption of mental competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor is mentally incompetent, except as specified. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to immediately refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency, as specified. If the court finds that the minor will not achieve competency within a reasonable period of time, the bill would require the court to dismiss the petition. The bill would authorize the court to allow specified persons and agencies to discuss any services that may be available to the minor after the court's jurisdiction is terminated, and would require the court to make certain referrals for the minor. The bill would require, among others, the presiding judge of a juvenile court, the probation department, and the county mental health department to develop a written protocol describing the competency process and a program to ensure that minors who are found incompetent receive appropriate remediation services. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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 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. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.

  3. In committee: Held under submission.

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

  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (March 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  6. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

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

  8. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  9. From printer. May be heard in committee March 18.

  10. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Obernolte · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Obernolte

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

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 689 do?
Existing law authorizes, during the pendency of any juvenile proceeding, the minor's counsel or the court to express a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires proceedings to be suspended if the court finds substantial evidence raises a doubt as to the minor's competency. Existing law requires the court to appoint an expert, as specified, to evaluate whether the minor suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental immaturity, or other condition and, if so, whether the condition or conditions impair the minor's competency. This bill would revise and recast these provisions to, among other things, expand upon the duties imposed upon an expert during his or her evaluation of a minor whose competency is in doubt, as specified. The bill would authorize the district attorney or minor's counsel to retain or seek the appointment of additional qualified experts with regard to determining competency, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to adopt a rule of court relating to the qualifications of those experts, as specified. The bill would also add provisions that would require a minor's competency to instead be determined at an evidentiary hearing, and would establish a presumption of mental competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the minor is mentally incompetent, except as specified. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to immediately refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency, as specified. If the court finds that the minor will not achieve competency within a reasonable period of time, the bill would require the court to dismiss the petition. The bill would authorize the court to allow specified persons and agencies to discuss any services that may be available to the minor after the court's jurisdiction is terminated, and would require the court to make certain referrals for the minor. The bill would require, among others, the presiding judge of a juvenile court, the probation department, and the county mental health department to develop a written protocol describing the competency process and a program to ensure that minors who are found incompetent receive appropriate remediation services. By imposing additional duties on local officials, 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 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 AB 689?
AB 689 is sponsored by Obernolte.
What is the current status of AB 689?
This bill died with 2017-2018 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” 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 689?
Track AB 689 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 689

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 689

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →