California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 2000 — Wards: termination of juvenile court jurisdiction.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

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

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a minor to be a ward of the court on the basis of the minor's delinquent behavior. Under existing law, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court may continue until the ward attains 21 or 25 years of age, depending on the nature of the offense. Existing law requires the juvenile court to hold a hearing prior to terminating jurisdiction over a ward who is subject to an order of foster care, as specified. Under existing law, whenever the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a ward who has also been designated a dependent of the court or previously placed into foster care, the probation or parole officer is required to provide the ward with specified information and documents relating to benefits for former foster children. This bill would prohibit the juvenile court from terminating jurisdiction over a ward who has attained 17 years of age until the court conducts a hearing and finds that the probation department has provided, or made reasonable efforts to provide, certain information, documents, and services to the ward. The bill would authorize a juvenile court, at its discretion, to make these provisions applicable to a ward under 17 years of age, if requested by the ward, and if the court finds that doing so is in the ward's best interest. By imposing duties on probation officers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also direct the Judicial Council to develop and implement standards and forms necessary to implement these 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 9. Page 5223.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

  9. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 2.) (May 27).

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

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 1.) (March 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  14. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  16. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Campos · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Campos

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

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 6000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2000 CAMPOS Assembly Third Reading

Passed 68 Yea · 9 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 62503
Democratic 5000
Republican 1400
Total 68903
% of votes cast 85%11%0%4%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Nay
Brown — Yea
Holden — Yea
Levine — Yea
Mathis — Nay
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Low — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Medina — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Burke — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Gray — Yea
Harper — Nay
Lopez — Yea
Kim — Yea
Linder — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Campos — Yea
Atkins — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chang — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Hadley — Not Voting
Bigelow — Not Voting
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Travis Allen — Nay
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 17 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 15100
Democratic 2000
Republican 0101
Total 17201
% of votes cast 85%10%0%5%
How each member voted (20)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Chang — Yea
Daly — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Holden — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Bigelow — Nay
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

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 2000 do?
Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a minor to be a ward of the court on the basis of the minor's delinquent behavior. Under existing law, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court may continue until the ward attains 21 or 25 years of age, depending on the nature of the offense. Existing law requires the juvenile court to hold a hearing prior to terminating jurisdiction over a ward who is subject to an order of foster care, as specified. Under existing law, whenever the juvenile court terminates jurisdiction over a ward who has also been designated a dependent of the court or previously placed into foster care, the probation or parole officer is required to provide the ward with specified information and documents relating to benefits for former foster children. This bill would prohibit the juvenile court from terminating jurisdiction over a ward who has attained 17 years of age until the court conducts a hearing and finds that the probation department has provided, or made reasonable efforts to provide, certain information, documents, and services to the ward. The bill would authorize a juvenile court, at its discretion, to make these provisions applicable to a ward under 17 years of age, if requested by the ward, and if the court finds that doing so is in the ward's best interest. By imposing duties on probation officers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also direct the Judicial Council to develop and implement standards and forms necessary to implement these 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Who sponsors AB 2000?
AB 2000 is sponsored by Campos.
What is the current status of AB 2000?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” 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 2000?
Track AB 2000 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2000

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 2000

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →