Juvenile proceedings: competency.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 2695 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 AB 2695.
You're tracking AB 2695
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 2695 — Juvenile proceedings: competency.
Last action — In committee: Held under submission.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
2In Committee
-
3Passed Assembly
-
4Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill died with 2015-2016 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This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis.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 the 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 require the minor's competency to be determined at an evidentiary hearing, except as specified, and establish a presumption of competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is incompetent. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency. 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 invite 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. Notwithstanding these provisions, the bill would prohibit remediation services from exceeding certain time periods, as specified. 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, 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
- Amended 04/19/16 - Amended Assembly Current pdf April 19, 2016
- Introduced 02/19/16 - Introduced pdf February 19, 2016
- AB2695 View text html
Action History
-
In committee: Held under submission.
-
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 12).
-
Referred to Com. on PUB. S.
-
Read first time.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
-
Introduced. 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.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unaffiliated | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Jones-Sawyer | — | Yea |
| Low | — | Yea |
| Lopez | — | Yea |
| Melendez | — | Yea |
| Quirk | — | Yea |
| Santiago | — | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 2695 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 the 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 require the minor's competency to be determined at an evidentiary hearing, except as specified, and establish a presumption of competency, unless it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is incompetent. The bill would require the court, upon a finding of incompetency, to refer the minor to services designed to help the minor attain competency. 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 invite 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. Notwithstanding these provisions, the bill would prohibit remediation services from exceeding certain time periods, as specified. 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, 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 2695?
- AB 2695 is sponsored by Obernolte.
- What is the current status of AB 2695?
- This bill died with 2015-2016 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 2695?
- Track AB 2695 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 2695
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 AB 2695
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →