BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 365|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 365
Author: Cristina Garcia (D)
Amended: 3/11/15 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/9/15
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning,
Wieckowski
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 4/23/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Child custody proceedings: testimony by electronic
means
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill requires the court to allow a party, whose
deportation or detention by the federal Department of Homeland
Security materially affects his or her ability to appear at a
child custody proceeding, to present testimony and evidence, and
participate in mandatory child custody mediation, by electronic
means.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)Provides that if a party's military deployment, mobilization,
or temporary duty will have a material effect on his or her
ability to appear in person at a regularly scheduled custody
AB 365
Page 2
hearing, the court shall, upon motion of the party:
Hold an expedited hearing to determine custody and
visitation issues prior to the party's departure; or
Allow the party to present testimony and evidence and
participate in court-ordered child custody mediation by
electronic means, including, but not limited to, telephone,
video teleconferencing, or the Internet, to the extent that
this technology is reasonably available to the court and
the due process rights of all parties are protected. (Fam.
Code Sec. 3047.)
1)Requires the court to set contested custody or visitation
matters for mediation, and allows mediators, consistent with
local rules, to submit recommendations to the court. (Fam.
Code Secs. 3170, 3183.)
2)Requires the court to order reasonable reunification services
to assist parents who have been incarcerated,
institutionalized, detained, or deported including contacting
welfare authorities in a deported parent's country of origin,
to identify any available services that would substantially
comply with a juvenile court case plan requirement, document
parents' participation in those services, and accept reports
from local child welfare authorities as to the parents' living
situation, progress and participation in services. (Welf. &
Inst. Code Sec. 361.5(e).)
3)Allows the court to permit parties to appear by telephone in
family law cases if the court determines that telephonic
appearance is appropriate, and allows parties in civil cases
to appear by telephone, as specified. (Cal. Rules of Court
5.9, 3.670.)
This bill:
1)Requires the court to allow a party to present testimony and
evidence, and participate in mandatory child custody mediation
by electronic means if the party's deportation or detention by
the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement will
have a material effect on his or her ability, or anticipated
ability, to appear in person at a child custody proceeding.
AB 365
Page 3
2)Specifies that "electronic means" includes, but is not limited
to, telephone, video teleconferencing, or other electronic
means that provide remote access to the hearing, to the extent
that this technology is reasonably available to the court and
protects the due process rights of all parties.
Background
Courts must generally order social workers to provide services
to reunify a family if the parent has not voluntarily
relinquished his or her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code
Sec. 360(a).) Reunification plans must be appropriate and based
on the unique facts of the family. If parents successfully
complete the reunification plan, and reunification is in the
best interest of the child, children are typically released to
the custody of the parent. In 2008, California expanded this
concept of tailoring reunification plans to the unique facts of
each family when it enacted AB 2070 (Bass, Chapter 482, Statutes
of 2008). AB 2070 required that courts take into consideration,
among other factors, the particular barriers incarcerated and/or
institutionalized parents encounter in accessing court-mandated
reunification services, including parent-child bonding and the
likelihood of the parent's discharge within the reunification
timeframe.
Service members, who are often unable to participate in
contested custody and visitation proceedings due to deployment,
have also been given certain protections under both federal and
state law. SB 1082 (Morrow and Ducheny, Chapter 154, Statutes
of 2005) created an expedited process for the modification of
child support orders for service members who are deployed
out-of-state. AB 2416 (Cook, Chapter 466, Statutes of 2010)
further added to those protections by authorizing a court to
allow a deployed parent to participate in child custody
proceedings and mediation by electronic means.
Similar to AB 2416, this bill helps ensure that detained and/or
deported parents are able to participate in custody proceedings
and mediation by allowing them to participate by electronic
means.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: No
AB 365
Page 4
SUPPORT: (Verified6/22/15)
Association of Family & Conciliation Courts
California Communities United Institute
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
First Focus Campaign for Children
National Association of Social Workers - California Chapter
Service Employees International Union
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/22/15)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support, the Association of Family
and Conciliation Courts writes "existing law currently gives the
court the authority to allow parties to appear by phone or other
electronic means where warranted and feasible. This bill would
require the court to allow such electronic participation in dire
situations involving detention and possible deportation. We
believe this is appropriate and can assist these families in
adequately moving through the custody process."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 73-1, 4/23/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom,
Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Chang, Chau, Chávez,
Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd,
Eggman, Frazier, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia,
Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley,
Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim,
Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mathis,
Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Olsen,
Patterson, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner,
Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Brough
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Beth Gaines, Jones, Melendez,
AB 365
Page 5
Obernolte, Salas
Prepared by:Nichole Rapier / JUD. / (916) 651-4113
6/22/15 14:30:48
**** END ****