BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 687 (Fletcher)
As Amended June 27, 2011
Hearing Date: July 5, 2011
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
EDO
SUBJECT
Adoption
DESCRIPTION
This bill, sponsored by the Academy of California Adoption
Lawyers, would make several changes to the adoption process,
including:
provides that when the inquiry is being made into the natural
father of a child who is being proposed to be adopted that it
also include the names and whereabouts of every man presumed
to be the father and the efforts made to give notice of the
proposed adoption;
provides that notice of the adoption proceeding to the man
identified as the natural father is not required when the
man's relationship to the child has been previously terminated
or when the man has executed a written form to waive notice,
deny paternity, relinquish the child for adoption, or
consented to the adoption;
provides that a licensed private adoption agency is authorized
to process non-dependent children adoptions through the
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, in specified
circumstances;
provides that the court may issue an adoption order nunc pro
tunc in specified circumstances;
provides that a petition challenging an adoption on the basis
of fraud must be commenced within three years of the order, or
90 days of discovering the fraud;
provides multiple venue options for an adult adoption; and
provides that a new adoption birth certificate be issued in a
timely manner
(more)
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageB of?
BACKGROUND
Every year the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL)
seeks to clarify or modify provisions in the Family Code which
they have identified as having either technical errors or as
being the basis for conflicting court rulings that could
potentially prolong the adoption process. This bill is being
sponsored by ACAL for this specific purpose.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
1.Existing law provides that in an effort to identify the
natural father of a child being placed for adoption, the court
shall inquire of the mother and any appropriate person from
any of the following: (1) the State Department of Social
Services; (2) a licensed county adoption agency; (3) the
licensed adoption agency to which the child is to be
relinquished; and (4) in the case of a stepparent adoption, at
the option of the board of supervisors, a licensed county
adoption agency, the county department designated by the board
of supervisors to administer the public social services
program, or the county probation department. (Fam. Code Sec.
7663(a).)
Existing law provides that inquiry into the identity of the
natural father shall include: (1) whether the mother was
married at the time of conception of the child or any time
after; (2) whether the mother was living with a man at the
time of conception or birth of the child; (3) whether the
mother has received support payments or promises of support in
connection with her pregnancy; and (4) whether any man has
formally or informally acknowledged or declared his possible
paternity of the child. (Fam. Code Sec. 7663(b).)
This bill would also require the inquiry into the identity of
the natural father of the child to include the names and
whereabouts of every man presumed or alleged to be the father
of the child, and the efforts made to give notice of the
proposed adoption to each man identified.
2.Existing law provides that the department or the licensed
adoption agency must provide a report of its finding regarding
the inquiry into the identity of the child's natural father to
the court. (Fam. Code Sec. 7663(c).)
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageC of?
This bill would provide that the agency that completes the
inquiry must file a written report with its finding to the
court.
3.Existing law provides that after the natural father has been
identified, or if more than one man is identified as a
possible father, each must be given notice of the proceedings,
unless he has been served with written notice alleging that he
is or could be the father of the child to be adopted and has
failed to bring an action to declare the existence of the
father and child relationship within 30 days after service of
the notice, or the birth of the child, whichever is later. If
the alleged father fails to appear, or fails to claim parental
rights, his parental rights will be terminated. (Fam. Code
Sec. 7664(a).)
This bill would consolidate provisions regarding when notice
to the alleged or presumed father is not required into Family
Code Section 7666.
4.Existing law provides that nothing in this part shall change
the rights of a presumed father under Family Code Section
7611. (Fam. Code Sec. 7664(c).)
This bill would delete the statement that "nothing in this
part shall change the rights of a presumed father under Family
Code Section 7611"since this conflicts with other sections of
the Family Code, namely Section 7612(c) which provides that a
presumption under 7611 is rebutted by a judgment of paternity.
5.Existing law provides that notice shall be given to every
person identified as the natural father or possible natural
father at least 10 days before the date stated in the notice
of the proceeding. Existing law provides that if a person
identified as the natural father or possible natural father
cannot be located or his whereabouts are unknown, the court
may issue an order dispensing with notice of that person.
(Fam. Code Sec. 7666.)
This bill would consolidate the provisions regarding when
notice to a man identified or alleged as the natural father
shall not be required including the following already
contained in existing law:
the whereabouts or identity of the alleged father are
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageD of?
unknown or cannot be ascertained; or
the alleged father has been served with written notice of
his alleged paternity and the proposed adoption, and he has
failed to bring an action within 30 days of service of the
notice or the birth of the child, whichever is later.
This bill would add the following provisions for when notice
to a man identified or alleged as the natural father is not
required:
the man's relationship to the child has been previously
terminated or determined not to exist by a court; or
the alleged or presumed father has executed a written
form to waive notice, deny his paternity, relinquish the
child for adoption, or consent to the adoption of the
child.
1.Existing law provides that an action to terminate the parental
rights of a father of a child shall be set for hearing not
more than 45 days after filing of the petition and completion
of service. Existing law provides that notice of the
proceeding must be given to every person identified as the
natural father in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure
for the service of process in a civil action in this state at
least 10 days before the date stated in the notice of the
proceeding. Proof of giving the notice must be filed with the
court before the petition is heard. (Fam. Code Secs. 7666 and
7667.)
This bill would provide that an action to terminate the
parental rights of a father shall be set for hearing not more
than 45 days after filing the petition, rather than the date
of service of process, however service of process must still
take place at least ten days before the hearing, with proof
being filed with the court.
2.Existing law , the Interstate Compact on the Placement of
Children (ICPC), provides that the California Department of
Social Services, is "the appropriate public authority"
responsible for the administration of ICPC. (Fam. Code Sec.
7900 et seq.)
This bill would provide that when a full-service licensed
private adoption agency has provided adoption-related services
to a birth parent, non-dependent child, or prospective
adoptive parent, that agency is authorized to process the
paperwork for a non-dependent child pursuant to the ICPC.
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageE of?
3.Existing law provides that the court may enter a judgment for
dissolution of marriage nunc pro tunc, even though the
judgment may have been previously entered, if the judgment was
not entered as soon as it could have by mistake, negligence,
or inadvertence. (Fam. Code Sec. 2346.)
This bill would provide that a court may issue an order of
adoption nunc pro tunc where it will serve public policy and
the best interests of the adoptee for specified purposes.
This bill would provide that an adoptee's eligibility for any
publicly-funded benefit program would not be altered by the
nunc pro tunc entry of an order of adoption.
4.Existing law provides that in a stepparent adoption, the
consent of either or both birth parents shall be signed in the
presence of a notary public, court clerk, probation officer,
qualified court investigator, or county welfare department
staff member of any county. The above stated individuals must
immediately file the consent with the clerk of the court where
the adoption petition is filed. Existing law provides that
the clerk must immediately notify the probation officer, or,
the county welfare department. Existing law provides that in
an agency adoption either birth parent may relinquish a child
to the department or a licensed adoption agency for adoption
by a written statement signed before two subscribing witnesses
and acknowledged before an authorized official of the
department or agency. Existing law provides that in
independent adoptions an adoption service provider shall also
witness the signature of the adoption placement agreement.
(Fam. Code Secs. 9003, 8700(a) and 8801.7(a).)
This bill would add an authorized representative of a licensed
adoption agency to the list of individuals who may witness the
consent in a stepparent adoption. This bill would also
provide that the consent may be filed simultaneously with the
adoption request.
5.Existing law provides that a proceeding to vacate or set aside
an adoption on any ground, except fraud, shall be commenced
within one year after the entry of the adoption order.
Existing law provides that an action to vacate or set aside an
adoption, based on fraud, must be commenced within three years
after the adoption. (Fam. Code Sec. 9102.)
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageF of?
This bill would provide that the action to vacate an adoption
based on fraud must be commenced within three years after the
adoption or within 90 days of discovery of the fraud,
whichever is earlier. This bill would also require the court
to first determine whether the facts presented are legally
sufficient to set aside the order of adoption. If the facts
are not legally sufficient, the petition must be denied. If
the facts are legally sufficient, the court's final ruling
must take into consideration the best interests of the child,
in conjunction with all other factors required by law.
6.Existing law provides that the petition for an adult adoption
may be filed in the county in which either person resides.
(Fam. Code Sec. 9321.)
This bill would also allow a person who is a resident of this
state to petition for an adult adoption to be filed in any of
the following:
the county where the prospective adoptive parent
resides;
the county where the proposed adoptee was born or
resides at the time the petition is filed; or
the county where the office of the public or private
agency that placed the proposed adoptee for foster care or
adoption as a minor is located.
This bill would also allow a petitioner who is not a resident
of this state to file a petition for an adult adoption with
the court in any of the above mentioned counties or the county
where the non-petitioning party resides.
1.Existing law provides that a new birth certificate must be
issued upon receipt of a report of adoption. (Health & Saf.
Code Sec. 102635.)
This bill would require the State Registrar to issue the new
birth certificate within 120 days of receipt of the report of
adoption, or within 90 days if an adoptive parent requests an
expedited birth certificate. This bill would require that the
fee for an expedited birth certificate be $150.00.
2.Existing law provides that the State Department of Social
Services must check the Child Abuse Central Index prior to
granting a license to, or otherwise approving, any individual
to care for children. Existing law also requires a county
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageG of?
social worker to cause a check of the Child Abuse Index to be
conducted on all persons over 18 years of age living in a home
whenever a child may be placed in the home of a relative or
prospective guardian or other person who is not a licensed or
certified foster parent. (Health & Saf. Code Sec. 1522.1.)
This bill would provide that a foster care license or
certification is not required if a nondependent child is
placed in the care of prospective adoptive parents who have an
approved adoption home study. This bill would provide that
this placement must not exceed 30 days and if placement does
not occur within the 30 days, the licensed private adoption
agency must place the child in a home that is licensed or
certified for foster care, or the prospective adoptive parent
or parents must be appointed by the court as the legal
guardian or guardians of the child. This bill would also
provide that the licensed private adoption agency must conduct
in-home supervisory visits no less than once every thirty
days.
COMMENT
1. Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
This is the annual ACAL bill whose purpose is to address
primarily technical legal issues associated with different
forms of adoption. Some of the issues are technical and seek
to alleviate conflict within the Family Code sections or
clarification of sections. Others address more substantive
issues that due to either a court decision or to a change in
practice or administration by the regulatory entities such as
the county adoption offices or the �California Department of
Social Services]. Finally some are strictly administrative
changes to expedite adoptions.
Unfortunately there are instances where adoptive families run
into one of these situations and the costs of litigating adds
significantly to the adoption process. This bill is �the]
latest in a series of annual efforts to clean up the adoption
sections of the Family Code. For the past 10 years, ACAL has
sponsored this annual legislation all of which have been
signed into law.
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageH of?
The sponsor of this bill, Academy of California Adoption
Lawyers, writes, "building families through adoption is a very
important process for many families in our state today. Given
the challenging economic times, reducing the need to either
litigate or expend legal fees to sort through conflicting or
ambiguous sections of the Family Code, adds to the expense of
adoption that most families cannot afford. Creating an
opportunity for a child to be placed and accepted in a family
home is the best option. �This bill] ensures that there are
fewer technicalities that may serve as a barrier in California
law."
2. Bill would improve the process for finding and notifying a
presumed or alleged father of a child being considered for
adoption
Under existing law, the court is required to make efforts to
identify the natural father of a child who is being considered
for adoption. Depending on the agency handling the adoption,
the court must request the agency to determine: (1) whether the
mother was married at the time of conception or any time after;
(2) whether the mother was cohabitating with a man at the time
of conception or birth of the child; (3) whether the mother
received support payments for the child or her pregnancy; and
(4) whether any man has formally or informally acknowledged
paternity of the child. The agency or department that handles
this investigation must then report the findings to the court.
The purpose of this investigation is to locate and determine the
child's natural father in order to be sure that the father
consents to the child's adoption.
In addition to the aforementioned inquiries that the agency
handling the adoption must make, this bill would also require
the agency to include in the report of findings, the names and
whereabouts of every man presumed or alleged to be the father of
the child, if these names and whereabouts are known. This bill
would also require the agency to include the efforts made to
give notice of the proposed adoption to these men. In light of
several court cases finding that the interests of the child
outweigh the interests of the natural father once the child has
been placed with non-biological parents through adoption or
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageI of?
guardianship proceedings<1>, it is imperative that the natural
father be given adequate notice of the proposed adoption in
order to exercise his rights prior to any action being taken.
(See also Guardianship of Zachary D. v. Eric P. (1999) 73
Cal.App.4th 51.) This additional inquiry which would be
included in the agency report should help facilitate this
process. As a result, it is hoped that proper parental notice
is provided prior to any adoption being finalized.
3. Bill would clarify rights of a presumed father and would
consolidate notice requirements
Under existing law, after inquiry has been made regarding the
natural father of the child, notice must be provided to any man
alleged or presumed to be the natural father unless the alleged
or presumed natural father has been served with a written notice
that he is or may be the natural father and that the child may
be adopted, and he has failed to bring an action to determine
the existence of a father and child relationship. This must
occur within 30 days after receiving the notice or the birth of
the child, whichever is later. (Fam. Code Sec. 7664.) Existing
law also provides that if a person identified as the natural
father cannot be located the court may issue an order dispensing
of notice. (Fam. Code Sec. 7666.) However, if the natural
father claims parental rights the court must determine whether
or not he is the natural father and whether or not adoption is
in the best interest of the child. Existing law provides that
this process does not change the rights of a presumed father
under Family Code Section 7611. (Fam. Code Sec. 7664.)
In addition to existing law that provides that notice of the
proceeding to terminate parental rights for an adoption is not
---------------------------
<1> "California recognizes the principle that children are not
merely chattels belonging to their parents, but rather have
fundamental interests of their own. . . As a matter of simple
common sense, the rights of children in their family
relationships are at least as fundamental and compelling as
those of their parents. If anything children's familial rights
are more compelling than adult's . . . cases which hold that
deference is to be accorded to parental rights do so in part on
the assumption that children's needs generally are best met by
helping parents achieve their interests. In some situations,
however, children's and parents' rights conflict, and in these
situations, the legal system traditionally protects the
child."(See In re Bridget R. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1483.)
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageJ of?
required for a father whose whereabouts cannot be determined, or
when the father has been given notice but has not instituted
proceedings to determine a father and child relationship, this
bill would provide that notice is also not required when: (1)
the man's relationship to the child has been previously
terminated or determined not to exist by a court; or (2) the
alleged or presumed father has executed a written form to waive
notice<2>, deny his paternity, relinquish the child for
adoption, or consent to the adoption of the child. In these
situations, notice would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Requiring notice when the court has already terminated a father
and child relationship or when a father has already waived his
right to further notice of adoption proceedings or denied his
paternity would only prolong the adoption process unnecessarily.
4. Bill would clarify timing for the hearing to terminate
parental rights
Under existing law, an action to terminate the parental rights
of a father of a child must be set for hearing not more than 45
days after filing of the petition and completion of service of
process. Existing law also requires that the hearing date be
provided at the time of service. Service of process for an
action to terminate the parental rights of a father for the
purpose of an adoption must be completed at least 10 days before
the date stated in the notice of the proceeding. However, since
it is rarely possible to know the exact date of service of
process, it is also nearly impossible to include the hearing
date in the service. This bill would provide that the hearing
be set not more than 45 days after the date of filing the
petition. If, at that time, service of process has not been
completed, the hearing date would be continued by the court
since service of process must be completed at least 10 days
---------------------------
<2> The two forms to which this language is referring are the
"Waiver of Right to Further Notice of Adoption Proceedings" and
"Denial of Paternity by Alleged Natural Father." When an alleged
father signs either form (before or after birth of the child),
he is saying that he doesn't want to be involved in the case.
The attorney must submit a copy of the Waiver or the Denial to
prove that the man was given written notice of his alleged
paternity, notice of the adoption plan, and an opportunity to
participate or object - but has chosen to waive those rights
without admitting or denying paternity (via the Waiver) or to
deny paternity (via the Denial).
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageK of?
prior to the hearing and the proof of service must be filed with
the court.
5. Bill would allow private adoption agencies to perform
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)
services in the adoption of non-dependent children
Under existing law, the California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) is the administrator of all ICPC adoptions. According to
the ICPC Web site, "the ICPC is a contract among member states
and U.S. territories authorizing them to work together to ensure
that children who are placed across state lines for foster care
or adoption receive adequate protection and support services.
The ICPC establishes procedures for the placement of children .
. . the purpose of the ICPC is to protect the child and the
party states in the interstate placement of children." CDSS has
delegated their authority to counties and licensed adoption
agencies for interstate placement requests in relative homes,
foster family homes and prospective adoptive homes.
This bill would specifically provide that when a full-service
licensed private adoption agency has provided adoption-related
services to a birth parent, non-dependent child, or prospective
adoptive parent, that agency is authorized to process the
paperwork for a non-dependent child pursuant to the ICPC. When
a birth parent or prospective adoptive parent has solicited help
from a private adoption agency, the agency should be able to
investigate all possible options within or outside the State.
If a placement is located outside of the state, or a child is
found outside of the state, it is reasonable to allow the
private adoption agency to complete the process rather than
having to hand the adoption off to the CDSS in order to comply
with the ICPC.
6. Bill would provide that the court may enter an order for
adoption nunc pro tunc under specified circumstance
Nunc pro tunc is the latin phrase meaning "now for then" and is
used when the court determines that a ruling or order should
apply retroactively. This bill would provide that the court may
issue an order for adoption nunc pro tunc when an adoption has
been unduly delayed resulting in an unjust consequence. An
example of when this may occur includes a child who, by the time
the adoption is final, through no fault of his or her own, has
reached the age of 18. Once the person has reached 18, they are
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageL of?
no longer a child for the purposes of adoption. Adoption
affords the child and parents the same rights, responsibilities
and obligations as if the child were born to the parents. In
California, "after adoption, the adopted child and the adoptive
parents shall sustain towards each other the legal relationship
of parent and child and have all the rights and are subject to
all the duties of that relationship." (Fam. Code Sec. 8616.)
Consequently, an adoption cannot be terminated without
substantial court involvement, in sum, the same process of
terminating parental rights that occurs in order for the
adoption to occur in the first place. On the other hand, an
adult adoption is simply a contractual agreement which is much
easier for either party to undue. Further, the courts' ability
to issue the adoption order nunc pro tunc is permissive and
should only be used to serve public policy and the best
interests of the adoptee. Finally, the nunc pro tunc order is
not meant to alter any public benefits or assistance that the
child would have or should have received.
7. Bill would require court to consider the best interest of the
child when an adoption is challenged based on fraud
Under existing law, an action to set aside an adoption on any
ground, other than fraud, must be commenced within one year.
For an action based on fraud, it must be commenced within three
years after entry of the adoption order. This bill would
further require that an action challenging an adoption based on
fraud be commenced within 90 days of discovering the fraud.
Additionally, this bill would require the court, in any action
challenging the adoption, to first determine whether the facts
presented are legally sufficient to set aside the order of
adoption. If the facts are not legally sufficient, the petition
must be denied. However, if the facts are legally sufficient,
the court must take into consideration the best interests of the
child, in conjunction with all other factors required by law.
This additional requirement providing that the court consider
the best interests of the child, is consistent with the
principle set forth in case law. In Guardianship of Zachary H.,
the court determined that it was in the best interest of the
child to remain with the adoptive parents even though the
biological father had attempted to establish a father and child
relationship prior to the adoption being final. (Guardianship
of Zachary D. v. Eric P. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 51.) In that
case, the biological father, Eric, had provided financial
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageM of?
assistance to the mother and had told the mother that he was
ready to assume full responsibility of the child. (Id. at 55.)
However, the mother placed the child immediately after the
child's birth with prospective adoptive parents. (Id.) Eric
filed a petition to determine paternity ten days prior to the
child's birth and the prospective adoptive parents filed a
petition for adoption two days after the child's birth. (Id.)
The lawyer for the prospective adoptive parents did not give
Eric notice of the hearing for the adoption petition. (Id.) The
court ruled that Eric had abandoned the child and granted the
adoption order (Id.). The child was placed with the adoptive
parents, although they allowed Eric to visit the child. (Id. at
56.) Two years after the adoption was finalized, several
experts including Eric himself acknowledged that removing the
child from the custody of the adoptive parents would be
detrimental to the child's best interests. (Id. at 58.)
Ultimately, after several appeals, the court held that the
adoption should be set aside, however the court granted the
adoptive parents a permanent guardianship based on the best
interest of the child. This bill is consistent with the
principle set forth in this case, in that the best interests of
the child should be considered in addition to any other court
findings.
Additionally, considering that existing law requires an alleged
or presumed father to bring an action within 30 days of notice
that he is or could be the natural father of a child to be
adopted, the 90 day requirement included in this bill appears to
be more than sufficient. If the expectation is that a natural
father will be able to bring an action to declare the existence
of a father and child relationship within 30 days of notice, it
is reasonable that a parent can bring an action to set aside an
adoption, based on fraud, within 90 days of notice. This is
also consistent with the public policy of attempting to provide
finality for the adopted child. If a parent is aware that the
adoption occurred fraudulently it is, arguably, against public
policy to allow that parent to delay acting on that information
for three years before bringing an action. Limiting the period
to 90 days after becoming aware of the fraud is a fair amount of
time for all parties involved.
8. Bill would provide additional venue options for an adult
adoption
Existing law provides that an adult adoption may be filed in the
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageN of?
county in which either person resides. This bill would also
allow a person who is a resident of this state to petition for
an adult adoption to be filed in any of the following: (1) the
county where the prospective adoptive parent resides; (2) the
county where the proposed adoptee was born or resides at the
time the petition is filed; or (3) the county where the office
of the public or private agency that placed the proposed adoptee
for foster care or adoption as a minor is located. This bill
would also allow a petitioner who is not a resident of this
state to file a petition for an adult adoption with the court in
any of the above mentioned counties or the county where the
non-petitioning party resides.
According to the sponsor, "adult adoptions are often used to
provide permanent families for children who have aged out of
foster care. Unlike adoptions of dependent minors, however,
adult adoptions cannot be filed in the county where the child
was a dependent, if the former foster child no longer resides in
that county. Expanding the venue options will give greater
flexibility and support for foster families and former foster
children who wish to make permanent connections, and agencies
that are providing support services to them." Since adult
adoptions are merely contractual agreements between the parties,
it would appear that there is no harm in providing more venue
options for people who wish to enter into this relationship. An
adult adoption can benefit both the young adult and the
prospective adoptive parent, but can be cancelled at any time.
9. Bill would expedite the process for receiving an adopted
child's birth certificate
Existing law authorizes the issuance of a new birth certificate
for an adopted child; however, there currently is no time frame
in which the birth certificate must be issued. This bill would
require the State Registrar to issue the new birth certificate
within 120 days of receipt of the court order granting the
adoption. This bill would also allow adoptive parents to pay a
fee of $150 to expedite the request to receive the new birth
certificate in 90 days. In response to staff inquiry regarding
the current length of time adoptive parents must wait to receive
a new birth certificate, the California Department of Public
Health responded that the "current processing time for adoption
birth certificates is 5 months. We are able to expedite under
certain circumstances. Processing the adoptions is a
complicated process which involves a thorough review of the
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageO of?
forms and the court order. It is also time consuming due to the
number of current requests that are in our queue that are either
being processed or waiting to be processed."
According to the sponsor, "adoptive families are currently
waiting 14-24 months after adoption finalization for their
child's new birth certificate. During that time, they are often
denied social security cards, passports, and other vital
documents for their child, because they do not have a birth
certificate establishing their legal parentage." It is hoped
that by providing a specific time frame, as well as the option
to pay an additional fee, adoption birth certificates will be
processed more expediently.
10. Technical amendments
1. On page 4, line 3, strike out "any" and insert "one".
2. On page 6, line 27, delete the words "waiver or" before
the word "denial."
Support : None Known
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Academy of California Adoption Lawyers
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
AB 2020 (Fletcher, Chapter, Statutes of 2010) among other
things, streamlined the process for determining parent-child
relationships and made other substantive and technical changes
to adoption laws.
SB 1726 (Scott, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2008) made several
substantive and technical changes to adoption law, including
providing that consolidated guardianship and adoption cases
AB 687 (Fletcher)
PageP of?
shall be heard and decided by the court in which the adoption is
pending.
AB 538 (Cardozo, Chapter 353, Statutes of 2011) among other
things, authorized licensed clinical social workers and licensed
marriage therapists to conduct stepparent adoption
investigations.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Committee on Judiciary (Ayes 9, Noes 0)
**************