AB926 - Juvenile court: visitation.

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION Assembly Bill No. 926 Introduced by Assembly Member Gipson (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bryan and Calderon) February 19, 2025 An act to amend Sections 319, 362.1, 364, 366.21, 366.22, and 366.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 926, as introduced, Gipson. Juvenile court: visitation. Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent 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 their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between a child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require, at the initial petition hearing, the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or legal guardian, setting forth the frequency and duration most conducive to quality family time, and whether the visitation must be supervised. The bill would require the court to order contact between the parent and child commencing within 72 hours. The bill would remove the above-described prohibition prohibiting a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would require, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. The bill would also require social workers or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety. Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing. This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare. By increasing the duties of county social workers, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Digest Key Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: YES Bill Text The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 319 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is amended to read: 319. (a) At the initial petition hearing, the court shall review the report described in subdivision (b) and examine the child’s parents, guardians, Indian custodian, or other persons having relevant knowledge and hear the relevant evidence as the child, the child’s parents or guardians, the child’s Indian custodian, the petitioner, the Indian child’s tribe, or their counsel desires to present. The court may examine the child, as provided in Section 350. (b) The social worker shall report to the court on the reasons why the child has been removed from the parent’s, guardian’s, or Indian custodian’s physical custody, the need, if any, for continued detention, the available services and the referral methods to those services that could facilitate the return of the child to the custody of the child’s parents, guardians, or Indian custodian, and whether there are any relatives who are able and willing to take temporary physical custody of the child. The report shall also include information regarding any short-term or long-term harms, or both short-term and long-term harms, to the child that may result from their removal from the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including, but not limited to, the information specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c), the placement options, including an assessment of the least disruptive alternatives to returning the child to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, including compliance with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 in the case of an Indian child, and measures that may be available to alleviate disruption and minimize the harms of removal. If it is known or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the report shall also include all of the following: (1) A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent the imminent physical damage or harm to the child. (2) The steps taken to provide notice to the child’s parents, custodians, and tribe about the hearing pursuant to this section. (3) If the child’s parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs regional director. (4) The residence and the domicile of the Indian child. (5) If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the tribe affiliated with that reservation or village. (6) The tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians. (7) A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that caused the Indian child to be taken into temporary custody. (8) If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation in which the tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and that are being made to contact the tribe and transfer the child to the tribe’s jurisdiction. (9) A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody. (10) The steps taken to consult and collaborate with the tribe and the outcome of that consultation and collaboration. (c) (1) The court shall order the release of the child from custody unless a prima facie showing has been made that the child comes within Section 300, the court finds that continuance in the parent’s or guardian’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare, and any of the following circumstances exist: (A) There is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage, and there are no reasonable means by which the child’s physical or emotional health may be protected without removing the child from the parent’s or guardian’s physical custody. (B) There is substantial evidence that a parent, guardian, or custodian of the child is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court, and, in the case of an Indian child, fleeing the jurisdiction will place the child at risk of imminent physical damage or harm. (C) The child has left a placement in which the child was placed by the juvenile court. (D) The child indicates an unwillingness to return home, if the child has been physically or sexually abused by a person residing in the home. (2) (A) The court shall determine whether less disruptive alternatives to removal were considered by the agency, such as factors related to the impact of removal on the child, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) A description of the relationship between the child and their parents, guardians, or Indian custodians, based on the child’s perspective, and the child’s response to removal and, where developmentally appropriate, their perspective on removal. (ii) The relationship between the child and any siblings. (iii) The relationship between the child and other members of the household. (iv) Any disruption to the child’s schooling, social relationships, and physical or emotional health that may result from placement out of the home, and in the case of an Indian child, any impact on the child’s connection to their tribe, extended family members, and tribal community. (B) If the court finds that removal is necessary under paragraph (1), the court shall, in a written order or on the record, set forth all of the following: (i) The basis for its findings and the evidence relied on. (ii) Its determination regarding the child’s placement, including whether it complies with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31 and less disruptive alternatives. (iii) Include any orders necessary to alleviate any disruption or harm to the child resulting from removal. (C) Nothing in this paragraph permits a child to be released to a parent, legal guardian, or Indian custodian, or to be placed in an unsafe placement, due solely to the court determining the child was not offered less disruptive alternatives. (d) If the court knows or there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court may only detain the Indian child if it also finds that detention is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm. The court shall state on the record the facts supporting this finding. (e) (1) If the hearing pursuant to this section is continued pursuant to Section 322 or for any other reason, the court shall find that the continuance of the child in the parent’s or guardian’s home is contrary to the child’s welfare at the initial petition hearing or order the release of the child from custody. (2) If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the hearing pursuant to this section may not be continued beyond 30 days unless the court finds all of the following: (A) Restoring the child to the parent, parents, or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm. (B) The court is unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe. (C) It is not possible to initiate an Indian child custody proceeding as defined in Section 224.1. (f) (1) The court shall also make a determination on the record, referencing the social worker’s report or other evidence relied upon, as to whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from their home, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 306, and whether there are available services that would prevent the need for further detention. Services to be considered for purposes of making this determination are case management, counseling, emergency shelter care, emergency in-home caretakers, out-of-home respite care, teaching and demonstrating homemakers, parenting training, transportation, and any other child welfare services authorized by the State Department of Social Services pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 16500) of Part 4 of Division 9. The court shall also review whether the social worker has considered whether a referral to public assistance services pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of, Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 17000) of Part 5 of, and Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) of Part 6 of, Division 9 would have eliminated the need to take temporary custody of the child or would prevent the need for further detention. This determination shall apply to each child individually, and the considerations shall be tailored to the individual child. (2) If the court knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child, the court shall also determine whether the county welfare department made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitation programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court shall order the county welfare department to initiate or continue services or programs pending disposition pursuant to Section 358. (3) If the child can be returned to the custody of their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian through the provision of those services, the court shall place the child with their parent, guardian, or Indian custodian and order that the services shall be provided. If the child cannot be returned to the physical custody of their parent or guardian, the court shall determine if there is a relative who is able and willing to care for the child, and has been assessed pursuant to Section 361.4. (4) In order to preserve the bond between the child and the parent and to facilitate family reunification, the court shall consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of substantial danger. The court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return of the child to the custody of their parent would pose a substantial danger or would not pose a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. (g) If a court orders a child detained, the court shall state the facts on which the decision is based, specify why the initial removal was necessary, reference the social worker’s report or other evidence relied upon to make its determination whether continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian is contrary to the child’s welfare, order temporary placement and care of the child to be [Text truncated for display. Full text available on Congress.gov.]