California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted 2 D cosponsors

SB 1060 — Postadoption contact: siblings of dependent children or wards.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 719, Statutes of 2016.

  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 16, 2016. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 82% · 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.

  • 11 sponsors

    1 primary, 10 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).

  • 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 provides that a minor may be adjudged a dependent child or a ward of the juvenile court under specified circumstances. Existing law authorizes the court to place a minor who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian in foster care, among other placements. Existing law allows, in an adoption proceeding, for continuing contact between the birth relatives and a child if a postadoption contact agreement is entered into voluntarily and is in the best interests of the child at the time the adoption petition is granted. Existing law requires, if parental rights are terminated and the court orders a dependent child or ward to be placed for adoption, the county adoption agency or the State Department of Social Services to take specified steps, with exceptions, to facilitate ongoing sibling contact, including the encouragement of prospective adoptive parents to make a plan for facilitating postadoptive contact, as specified. This bill would instead require the county placing agency, as part of the above steps, to the extent practicable, to convene a meeting with the child, the sibling or siblings of the child, the prospective adoptive parent or parents, and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement. The bill would provide that the county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement if specified circumstances occur. The bill would authorize the child to petition the court for an order requiring the county placing agency to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement. The bill would provide that the meeting is not required to occur if the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a postadoption sibling contact agreement or a meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute such an agreement is contrary to the safety and well-being of the child and notes the determination in the court order. By requiring new duties on a county placing agency relating to meetings on postadoption sibling contact agreements, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the court, at least every 6 months, to review the status of a dependent child for whom the court has ordered parental rights terminated and who has been ordered placed for adoption. This bill would require the court to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoption sibling contact agreement at the time of the first review hearing conducted pursuant to the above-described provision. Existing law requires a juvenile court, in the case of a minor declared a ward and ordered to be placed in foster care, and where the minor has continuing involvement with his or her parents or legal guardians, to include in its order placing the minor in a permanent placement a specification of the nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with the parents or legal guardians. This bill would expand this provision to also apply to visiting arrangements with siblings of the minor. This bill would also make conforming changes to related provisions. 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

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 719, Statutes of 2016.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 1:30 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 5908.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 20. Noes 0.) (August 11).

  9. August 3 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

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

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  13. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (June 21).

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

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

  16. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 31. Noes 7. Page 4098.) Ordered to the Assembly.

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

  18. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 4002.) (May 27).

  19. Set for hearing May 27.

  20. May 9 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  21. Set for hearing May 9.

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

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0. Page 3519.) (April 12).

  24. Set for hearing April 12.

  25. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  26. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 18.

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

Sponsors

  • Cristina Garcia · Cosponsor
  • Brown · Cosponsor
  • Lopez · Cosponsor
  • Chiu · Cosponsor
  • Chu · Cosponsor
  • Leno · Primary
  • Linder · Cosponsor
  • McCarty · Cosponsor
  • Mike McGuire · Cosponsor
  • Williams · Cosponsor
  • Benjamin Allen · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 10 co-sponsors · 111 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Leno

Co-sponsors (10)

Not signed on (111)

111 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 111 →

"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 SB1060 Leno Concurrence

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 36000
Democratic 3000
Total 39000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bates — Yea
Block — Yea
Huff — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Pan — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 1060 Leno Senate Third Reading By WILLIAMS

Passed 78 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 68002
Democratic 5000
Republican 5000
Total 78002
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Chang — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Harper — Yea
Salas — Yea
Levine — Yea
Low — Yea
Mayes — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Campos — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kim — Not Voting
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ting — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
Travis Allen — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 20 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 16000
Democratic 2000
Republican 2000
Total 20000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Weber — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Chang — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Daly — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 31 Yea · 7 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 28702
Democratic 3000
Total 31702
% of votes cast 78%18%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Bates — Yea
Beall — Not Voting
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Liu — Yea
Morrell — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lara — Yea
Pan — Yea
Hall — Yea
Block — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Runner — Not Voting
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Mark Stone — Nay
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended

Passed 5 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 4200
Democratic 1000
Total 5200
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Nay
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5001
Democratic 1000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Not Voting
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

housing 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 1060 do?
Existing law provides that a minor may be adjudged a dependent child or a ward of the juvenile court under specified circumstances. Existing law authorizes the court to place a minor who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent or guardian in foster care, among other placements. Existing law allows, in an adoption proceeding, for continuing contact between the birth relatives and a child if a postadoption contact agreement is entered into voluntarily and is in the best interests of the child at the time the adoption petition is granted. Existing law requires, if parental rights are terminated and the court orders a dependent child or ward to be placed for adoption, the county adoption agency or the State Department of Social Services to take specified steps, with exceptions, to facilitate ongoing sibling contact, including the encouragement of prospective adoptive parents to make a plan for facilitating postadoptive contact, as specified. This bill would instead require the county placing agency, as part of the above steps, to the extent practicable, to convene a meeting with the child, the sibling or siblings of the child, the prospective adoptive parent or parents, and a facilitator for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement. The bill would provide that the county placing agency is not required to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement if specified circumstances occur. The bill would authorize the child to petition the court for an order requiring the county placing agency to convene a meeting to decide whether to voluntarily execute a postadoption sibling contact agreement. The bill would provide that the meeting is not required to occur if the court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that a postadoption sibling contact agreement or a meeting for the purpose of deciding whether to voluntarily execute such an agreement is contrary to the safety and well-being of the child and notes the determination in the court order. By requiring new duties on a county placing agency relating to meetings on postadoption sibling contact agreements, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the court, at least every 6 months, to review the status of a dependent child for whom the court has ordered parental rights terminated and who has been ordered placed for adoption. This bill would require the court to inquire into the status of the development of a voluntary postadoption sibling contact agreement at the time of the first review hearing conducted pursuant to the above-described provision. Existing law requires a juvenile court, in the case of a minor declared a ward and ordered to be placed in foster care, and where the minor has continuing involvement with his or her parents or legal guardians, to include in its order placing the minor in a permanent placement a specification of the nature and frequency of visiting arrangements with the parents or legal guardians. This bill would expand this provision to also apply to visiting arrangements with siblings of the minor. This bill would also make conforming changes to related provisions. 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 1060?
SB 1060 is sponsored by Cristina Garcia, Brown, Lopez, Chiu, Chu, Leno, Linder, McCarty, McGuire, Mike (Democratic), Williams, and Allen, Benjamin (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 1060?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2016. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 1060?
Track SB 1060 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 1060

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 1060

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →