California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 68 — Minor or nonminor dependent parents: reunification services.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 284, Statutes of 2015.

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 January 08, 2015. 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 8 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 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 placement of a dependent child. 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 at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent's or guardian's access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent. (2) If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return for a subsequent permanency review hearing.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 284, Statutes of 2015.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:45 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2205.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  6. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 2534.) Ordered to the Senate.

  8. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  9. From committee: Do pass. Ordered to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14).

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

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 23).

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

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

  14. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 1292.) Ordered to the Assembly.

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

  16. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 1147.) (May 28).

  17. Set for hearing May 28.

  18. May 4 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  19. Set for hearing May 4.

  20. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 525.) (April 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

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

  22. Set for hearing April 7.

  23. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  24. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 8.

  25. 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

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

Special Consent #7

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Pan — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Huff — Yea
Liu — Yea
Bates — Yea
Monning — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Wolk — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hancock — 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 68 Liu Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 70001
Democratic 4000
Republican 5000
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Brown — Yea
Harper — Yea
Holden — Yea
Low — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Burke — Yea
Salas — Yea
Linder — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Campos — Yea
Gray — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Chu — Not Voting
Bonilla — Yea
Lopez — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Kim — Yea
Levine — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Medina — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wood — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Perea — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Hadley — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — 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 as amended, and be re-referred to the Committee on [Human Services] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 1000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Alejo — Yea
Holden — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chau — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 37000
Democratic 3000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Lara — Yea
Liu — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Allen — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hill — Yea
Bates — Yea
Leno — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huff — Yea
Beall — 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 →

Do pass as amended

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Lara — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Hill — Yea
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Leyva — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Mendoza — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety housing civil-rights
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 68 do?
(1) 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 placement of a dependent child. 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 at the review hearings held 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months, respectively, after the initial disposition hearing, 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. In making this determination, existing law requires the court to consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent and the extent to which he or she availed himself or herself of reunification services, taking into account the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent's or guardian's access to those court-mandated reunification services and ability to maintain contact with his or her child. This bill would require the court, in making its determination at those review hearings, to take into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent. (2) If a child is not returned to a parent or legal guardian at the 18-month permanency review hearing and the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the best interests of the child would be met by the provision of additional reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, as specified, existing law authorizes the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for a subsequent permanency review hearing, as specified. This bill would authorize the court to continue the case for up to 6 months for the provision of additional reunification services to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent at the initial hearing who is making significant and consistent progress in establishing a safe home for the child's return for a subsequent permanency review hearing.
Who sponsors SB 68?
SB 68 is sponsored by Liu.
What is the current status of SB 68?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 08, 2015. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 68?
Track SB 68 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 68

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 68

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →