BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2745
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2745 (Judiciary Committee)
As Introduced March 4, 2014
Majority vote
JUDICIARY 10-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Wieckowski, Wagner, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Alejo, Chau, Dickinson, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Garcia, Gorell, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Maienschein, Muratsuchi, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Stone | |Holden, Jones, Linder, |
| | | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Seeks to improve the handling of family and juvenile
law cases in our courts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Ratifies the authority of the Judicial Council to convert 10
subordinate judicial officer (SJO) positions to judgeships in
2014-15, provided the conversion of these positions will
result in judges being assigned to family or juvenile law
assignments previously presided over by a subordinate judicial
officer. Provides that this authority is in addition to the
existing authority provided to convert 16 SJOs to judges.
2)Allows the Judicial Council, by rule of court, to increase the
procedures for family centered case resolution set forth in
statute, but not reduce them.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of
judges and provide for the officers and employees of each
superior court. Provides that the Legislature may provide for
the trial courts to appoint officers such as commissioners to
perform subordinate judicial duties.
2)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles.
AB 2745
Page 2
3)Authorizes the conversion of 16 SJO positions in eligible
superior courts to judgeships each fiscal year as specified.
Authorizes the Judicial Council to convert up to an additional
10 SJOs to judgeships each year, upon vacancy and subsequent
legislative authorization, if the conversion of these
additional positions will result in judges being assigned to
family or juvenile law assignments previously presided over by
subordinate judicial officers, but requires that such
authority be ratified by the Legislature by statutory
enactment.
4)Allows a court in a dissolution proceeding to order a family
centered case resolution plan, even in the absence of a
stipulation by the parties. Clarifies that family centered
case resolution does not provide the court with any additional
authority to appoint an expert, beyond that permitted under
other provisions of law. Directs Judicial Council, by January
1, 2012, to adopt a rule of court to implement family centered
case resolution. But also allows Judicial Council, by rule,
to modify the case resolution procedures.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, annual cost of up to $270,000 for conversion of up to
10 SJOs to judgeships. For each conversion of an SJO position
to a judgeship, the additional annual cost, based on salary
differences between the two positions, is approximately $27,000.
The Judicial Council indicates that these additional costs will
be funded through a reallocation of monies in the Trial Court
Trust Fund.
COMMENTS : This bill makes two non-controversial changes to
family law. First, as required by statute, the bill ratifies
the Judicial Council's authority to convert 10 subordinate
judicial officers (SJOs) to judgeships in the next year,
provided those judges replace SJOs in family or juvenile law
cases. This provision 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.
Second, it makes a technical change to family centered case
resolution law to ensure that the existing law, passed by the
Legislature in 2010, is followed.
This bill seeks to improve family and juvenile law cases by
AB 2745
Page 3
ratifying the Judicial Council's authority to convert 10 SJOs to
judgeships in 2014-15, provided the conversion of these
positions will result in a judge being assigned to a family or
juvenile law assignment previously presided over by a
subordinate judicial officer. This will increase the likelihood
that these matters will be presided over by judges and not
subordinate judicial officers.
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 judges, are performing some of the most
complex and sensitive judicial duties. Conversion of these
positions to judgeships when they become vacant makes them more
accountable to the public and, the Judicial Council contends,
helps provide better trust and confidence in the courts.
AB 159 (Jones), Chapter 722, Statutes of 2007, 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
AB 2745
Page 4
heard by judges.
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 recommended that "[c]onsistent 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."
Recognizing the particular need for judges in family and
juvenile law cases, AB 2763 (Judiciary Committee), Chapter 690,
Statutes of 2010, authorized the Judicial Council to convert up
to an additional 10 SJOs to judgeships each year, 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 an SJO. However, such authorization must be
ratified by the Legislature. This was done by the Legislature
in 2013-14 (AB 1403 (Judiciary Committee), Chapter 510, Statutes
of 2013) and 2011-12 (SB 405 (Corbett), Chapter 705, Statutes of
2011). This bill seeks to provide the Judicial Council with
that same ratification for 2014-15.
Family centered case resolution was a key provision in the
Judiciary Committee's recent family law reform legislation -- AB
939 (Judiciary Committee), Chapter 352, Statutes of 2010. Prior
to that bill, with the exception of family law, all general
civil and criminal cases had procedures in place that allowed
the court to control the process and pacing of the case in order
to ensure a fair, timely, and just resolution. However, family
courts historically had not been granted the normal authority of
other civil courts to control their case scheduling without both
parties' consent, apparently based on an antiquated notion that
appropriately managing family law cases could potentially
prevent parties from reconciling. As a result, one party could
potentially drag out a case for a very long time in the hopes of
forcing the other party to agree to an unfavorable settlement.
AB 2745
Page 5
In order to modernize and align family court practices with
those of other courts, AB 939 allowed judges, with input of the
litigants and their attorneys, to have the ability to control
the manner and pace of the litigation by a method appropriate to
each case, which could include matters such as establishing
discovery schedules and cut-off dates, and setting dates for
exchange of expert witness information, even in the absence of a
stipulation by the parties.
Case management has now been implemented across the state and is
helping the courts, particularly in these difficult budget
times, better serve families. This bill does not change any
requirement concerning case management, but simply clarifies
that the Judicial Council may not reduce the statutory
requirements, absent legislative action, but may, should it deem
it appropriate to do so, increase requirements of case
management. This change is simply a technical cleanup to a
provision that pre-dated AB 939.
The Judicial Council states that the bill "makes clear the
legislative intent of setting a floor for case management in
dissolution and nullity matters. The bill appropriately
recognizes the Judicial Council's knowledge of and experience
with these cases, and the levels of management they require,
while setting a baseline that current rules of court already
exceed."
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN: 0003642