BILL ANALYSIS AB 2763 Page 1 Date of Hearing: April 13, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair AB 2763 (Judiciary) - As Amended: March 25, 2010 PROPOSED CONSENT SUBJECT : SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICER CONVERSIONS KEY ISSUE : SHOULD LEGISLATION BE ENACTED TO IMPROVE THE HANDLING OF FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW CASES BY INCREASING THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE MATTERS ARE PRESIDED OVER BY JUDGES? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal. SYNOPSIS This non-controversial bill seeks to improve family and juvenile law cases in California's courts. First, the bill authorizes the Judicial Council to convert up to 10 additional subordinate judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships each year, upon vacancy, if the conversion of these additional positions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. Second, the bill requires the Judicial Council to prepare and submit to the Legislature a Judicial Needs Assessment that revises the time study specifically for family and juvenile law, and thus re-evaluates the overall judicial needs of family and juvenile courts. The bill is nearly identical to last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of this Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. It is supported by the Judicial Council with no known opposition. SUMMARY : Seeks to improve the handling of family and juvenile law cases in our courts. Specifically, this bill : 1)Authorizes the Judicial Council to convert up to an additional 10 subordinate judicial officer positions (SJOs) to judgeships each year, upon vacancy, if the conversion of these additional positions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer. AB 2763 Page 2 2)Requires the Judicial Council to prepare and submit to the Legislature a Judicial Needs Assessment that revises the time study specifically for family and juvenile law, to get a better handle on the judicial resource needs of our family and juvenile courts. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of judges and provide for the officers and employees of each superior court. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section 4.) 2)Provides that the Legislature may provide for the trial courts to appoint officers such as commissioners to perform subordinate judicial duties. (California Constitution, Article VI, Section 22.) 3)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government Code section 71622.) 4)Authorizes the conversion of 16 subordinate judicial officer positions in eligible superior courts to judgeships each fiscal year as specified. (Government Code section 69615.) COMMENTS : This bill seeks to improve family and juvenile law cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers. The bill further seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate understanding of the shortage of family and juvenile law judges around the state so that this shortfall may begin to be remedied in an appropriate manner. The bill is supported by the Judicial Council with no known opposition. It is nearly identical to last year's AB 942 (Judiciary), which passed out of this Committee unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Committee is working to ensure there are no new costs associated with the bill. Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions . According to the Judicial Council, historically, SJO positions were created and funded at the county level to address courts' needs for judicial-like resources when new judgeships were pending or not yet authorized by the Legislature. Unlike judges, SJOs are not directly accountable to the public, but due to the shortages of AB 2763 Page 3 judges, are performing some of the most complex and sensitive judicial duties. Conversion of these positions to judgeships when they become vacant makes them both more accountable to the public and, the author contends, helps provide better trust and confidence in the courts. Recent SJO Conversion Bill : In 2007, AB 159 (Jones, Chapter 722) was enacted to address a severe shortage in the number of trial court judgeships. At that time, the Judicial Council noted potentially serious consequences flowing from this deficiency in judicial resources, including a significant decrease in Californians' access to the courts, compromised public safety, an unstable business climate, and enormous backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair, timely and equitable justice. That bill, in addition to authorizing 50 additional judges, authorized the conversion of 162 SJOs, upon vacancy, to judgeships to utilize the judicial resources more efficiently and properly limit SJOs to subordinate judicial duties. The stated findings and declarations supporting the legislation included the following: It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to restore an appropriate balance between subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these positions must be converted to judgeships in order to ensure that critical case types, including family, probate, and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges. (Government Code section 69615, emphasis added.) The Conversion Cap : In 2007, when AB 159 was enacted, the Legislature capped at 16 the number of conversions that may happen each fiscal year. According to the Judicial Council, the number of conversions selected was based on an estimate provided by the council during a budget subcommittee hearing that it would likely take about 10 years to convert the 162 requested positions, as the positions may only convert upon vacancy. For the first two years in which the council has converted positions, that number has fallen short of the number SJO vacancies that have occurred in courts that are eligible for conversions. In support of the need to convert SJO positions to judgeships, the 2007 Judicial Council Legislative Priorities AB 2763 Page 4 report included the following: When courts do not have enough judges, they must assign commissioners and referees to act as temporary judges; in that capacity commissioners and referees exercise the full power of judges, rather than the more limited duties within their statutorily defined scope of authority. Commissioners and referees act as temporary judges so often that, as stated in the [National Center for State Courts 2001] report to the council, they are "simply judges under a different title." In response to these findings, the Council in 2000 adopted a policy emphasizing that the primary role of subordinate judicial officers (SJOs) is to perform subordinate judicial duties, as delegated by the courts and described by statute. At the same time, the council adopted a policy supporting the conversion of SJO positions to judgeships in courts that use SJOs as temporary judges because of a shortage of judges. The council's policy is based on the principle that full public accountability requires the courts to provide judges to hear the serious and complex matters that are reserved to them by law. Blue Ribbon Commission Urges This Reform : In 2002 the Judicial Council identified family and juvenile law matters among those that are of such a nature as to require judges, rather than SJOs, to preside over them whenever possible. This Council policy has been echoed repeatedly. Among its many recommendations, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Children in Foster Care (BRC) recommended that "Consistent with Judicial Council policy, judges-not subordinate judicial officers-hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate judicial officers to juvenile court." This bill will therefore permit the Council to convert an additional 10 positions in each year. Consistent with the Legislature's increased focused interest on family and juvenile law reform and improvement, and with the enacted legislative findings and declarations regarding the rationale for conversion of SJOs, the Council's repeated statements that judges rather than SJOs should preside over critical case types such as family AB 2763 Page 5 and juvenile law, the recommendation of the BRC, and the focused attention on family law matters with the work of the Council's Elkins Family Law Task Force, the bill will permit the Council to convert the additional 10 positions if and only if the conversion results in a judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law assignment that was previously presided over by an SJO. The bill does not impact the Council's authority to convert the 16 positions already authorized by law. The criteria related to the family or juvenile law assignment is related only to conversions number 17 through 26. Judicial Needs Assessment . Government Code 69614 requires the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by November 1 of every even-numbered year on the general need for new judgeships in each superior court. In October 2008, the Council approved the 2008 updated Judicial Needs Assessment, which was subsequently transmitted to the Legislature. This bill directs the Council to prepare a special needs assessment, by November 30, 2011 (to give it needed time to do its work), specifically addressing judicial needs in family and juvenile law matters. There has been some concern that the time study used to produce the initial and all subsequent Judicial Needs Assessments has continued to "undercount" the time it takes to properly handle family and juvenile law matters, and thus inadvertently understates the judicial resource needs in courts across the state. The Judicial Council's Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Office of Court Research and Center for Families, Children & the Courts, have already begun the process to conduct a revised needs assessment specially targeted at these case types. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of the bill, the Judicial Council states: Over the years, in the face of few or no new judgeships being created, courts have had to hire SJOs simply to meet the demands of their workload. As a result, these SJOs have not simply been assigned to perform subordinate judicial duties, but in many cases they are assigned as temporary judges, possessing the full power of judges. The Judicial Council believes that family law and juvenile law cases, among the courts' most sensitive and often most complex, should be assigned to judges whenever possible. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : AB 2763 Page 6 Support Judicial Council Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334