BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1674
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 1674 (Ma) - As Amended: April 18, 2012
As Proposed to be Amended
SUBJECT : CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION: SUPERVISED VISITATION
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD RULES REGARDING PROVIDERS OF SUPERVISED
VISITATION SERVICES, NOW SUBJECT TO A JUDICIAL COUNCIL
GUIDELINE, BE CODIFIED?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
When making custody and visitation orders, a court may sometimes
order that the child only have contact with a parent when a
neutral third-party is present. This may be necessary to
protect the child and the parents in situations involving, for
example, domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, or
mental illness. These arrangements are known as supervised
visitation. As directed by the Legislature, the Judicial
Council has developed standards of practice for supervised
visitation providers. These standards, which were developed in
consultation with the various stakeholders, are thoughtful and
detailed. This bill, sponsored by the California Association of
Supervised Visitation Service Providers, seeks, for the most
part, to codify existing Judicial Council guidelines for
providers of supervised visitation, including both professional
and nonprofessional providers. Family law attorneys and the
California Psychological Association had opposed the previous
version of this bill, which required that providers be certified
by the Department of Consumer Affairs.
SUMMARY : Specifies standards for supervised visitation
providers in child custody and visitation matters.
Specifically, this bill , among other things:
1)Requires any standards adopted by the Judicial Council for
supervised visitation providers to conform to the provisions
of this bill.
AB 1674
Page 2
2)Defines the requirements to be a "nonprofessional,"
"professional," and "therapeutic" provider of supervised
visitation services. Requires that a nonprofessional provider
may not be used in cases where the court has determined that
there is domestic violence or child abuse, unless the court
makes a determination that using a nonprofessional provider
would be in the child's best interest.
3)Requires that professional and therapeutic providers have
received 24 hours of training in specified subjects, including
confidentiality, needs of children, child abuse laws,
substance abuse, sexual abuse and domestic violence. Requires
these providers to sign a declaration stating that they meet
the training and qualification requirements.
4)Requires each provider to maintain neutrality and to avoid
conflicts of interest, as specified.
5)Requires all providers to report suspected child abuse to the
appropriate agency. Requires all providers to provide a safe
visit for the child and the parent, and to terminate the visit
if the rules of the visit have been violated, the child
becomes acutely distressed or the safety of the child or the
provider is at risk. Requires professional and therapeutic
providers to provide written notice of a temporary suspension
or termination of the supervised visit to both parties, their
attorneys, the attorney for the child and the court.
6)Requires professional and therapeutic providers to keep
specified written records of each visit.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the Judicial Council to develop standards for
supervised visitation providers, including both individuals
providers and visitation centers. Requires the Judicial
Council to consult with specified groups when developing the
standards. When developing the standards, requires the
Judicial Council to consider:
a) The provider's qualifications, experience, and
education;
b) Safety and security procedures;
AB 1674
Page 3
c) Any conflict of interest;
d) Maintenance and disclosure of records, including
confidentiality policies;
e) Procedures for screening, delineation of terms and
conditions, and termination of supervised visitation
services;
f) Procedures for emergency or extenuating situations;
g) Orientation to and guidelines for cases in which there
are allegations of domestic violence, child abuse,
substance abuse, or special circumstances; and
h) The legal obligations and responsibilities of
supervisors. (Family Code Section 3200. Unless stated
otherwise, all statutory references are to the Family
Code.)
2)States the intent of the Legislature that the safety of
children, adults, and visitation supervisors be a precondition
to providing visitation services. Once safety is assured,
states the legislative intent that the best interest of the
child be the paramount consideration at all stages and
particularly in deciding the manner in which supervision is
provided. (Id.)
3)Requires any supervised visitation maintained or imposed by
the court to be administered in accordance with the California
Standards of Judicial Administration recommended by the
Judicial Council. (Section 3201.)
4)Requires the Judicial Council to apply annually for grants
from the federal government to fund supervised visitation
centers. Requires recipients of those grants to comply with
the Uniform Standards of Practice for Providers of Supervised
Visitation set forth in the California Standards of Judicial
Administration. (Section 3202 et seq.)
5)Sets forth standards with which providers of supervised
visitation should comply. Standards include rules concerning
qualifications of providers, required training, safety and
security measures, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and
maintenance of records. (California Standards of Judicial
Administration, Standard 5.20.)
COMMENTS : This bill, sponsored by the California Association of
Supervised Visitation Service Providers, seeks, for the most
AB 1674
Page 4
part, to codify existing Judicial Council guidelines for
providers of supervised visitation. According to the author:
"The purpose of the bill is to ensure that supervised visitation
providers are complying with 5.20 Standards to ensure providers
are properly trained . . . in cases of domestic violence, child
abuse, and sexual abuse."
Background on Supervised Visitation : When making custody and
visitation orders, a court may sometimes order that the child
only have contact with a parent when a neutral third-party is
present. This may be necessary to protect the child and the
parents in situations involving, for example, domestic violence,
child abuse, substance abuse, or mental illness. These
arrangements are known as supervised visitation. Often
supervised visitation providers are family or friends. Other
times professional supervisors working at visitation centers are
used and the parents must pay for the services. Sometimes
parents use supervised visitation centers just to facilitate
safe custody exchanges.
Judicial Council Standards : As directed by the Legislature, the
Judicial Council has developed standards of practice for
supervised visitation providers. These standards, which were
developed in consultation with the various stakeholders, are
thoughtful and detailed. This bill seeks to codify many of
those standards.
Qualifications : The qualifications set forth in the bill for
providers are the same as in the standards. Specifically, a
"nonprofessional provider" is any person who is not paid for
providing supervised visitation services. Unless otherwise
ordered by the court or stipulated by the parties, the
nonprofessional provider should:
Be 21 years of age or older;
Have no conviction for driving under the influence
within the last 5 years;
Not have been on probation or parole for the last 10
years;
Have no record of a conviction for child molestation,
child abuse, or other crimes against a person;
Have proof of automobile insurance if transporting the
child;
Have no civil, criminal, or juvenile restraining orders
AB 1674
Page 5
within the last 10 years;
Have no current or past court order in which the
provider is the person being supervised;
Not be financially dependent on the person being
supervised;
Have no conflict of interest, as defined; and
Agree to adhere to and enforce the court order regarding
supervised visitation.
In addition to meeting the requirements for a nonprofessional
provider, a "professional provider" must be able to speak the
language of the party being supervised and of the child, or the
provider must provide a neutral interpreter over the age of 18
who is able to do so. A "therapeutic provider" must be a
licensed mental health professional paid for providing
supervised visitation services, and must meet the requirements
of a professional provider.
Training : The standards provide that professional and
therapeutic providers should receive training in:
The role of a professional and therapeutic provider;
Child abuse reporting laws;
Record-keeping procedures;
Screening, monitoring, and termination of visitation;
Developmental needs of children;
Legal responsibilities and obligations of a provider;
Cultural sensitivity;
Conflicts of interest;
Confidentiality; and
Issues relating to substance abuse, child abuse, sexual
abuse, and domestic violence.
This bill codifies the standards, by mandating that professional
and therapeutic providers receive 24 hours of training in the
subjects listed above and adds basic knowledge of family and
juvenile law to the list.
Safety and Security Procedures : The standards require that all
providers make every reasonable effort to assure the safety and
welfare of the child and adults during the visitation and the
bill codifies that standard. In addition, the bill and the
standards provide that if a provider determines that the rules
of the visit have been violated, the child has become acutely
AB 1674
Page 6
distressed, or the safety of the child or the provider is at
risk, the visit may be temporarily interrupted, rescheduled at a
later date, or terminated. All providers must advise both
parties of the reasons for interruption of a visit or
termination, and professional and therapeutic providers must
also provide written notice of the termination to the parties,
the attorneys and the court.
Conflict of Interest : Again, the standards set forth conflict
of interest provisions and the bill codifies those provisions by
requiring that all providers maintain neutrality not be
financially dependent on the person being supervised, an
employee of that person, or in an intimate relationship with
that person.
Mandated Reporters : Child visitation monitors are specifically
made mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse by Penal Code
Section 11165.7(30) when either they are paid for the supervised
visitation services or when the court has ordered that the
visitation be monitored. This bill, consistent with the
standard, requires providers to report suspected child abuse to
the appropriate agency and inform the parents of the provider's
obligation to make such reports.
Technical Amendments : The author rightly proposes to make
several technical corrections to the bill:
On page 2, line 20, delete "judge" and insert "court"
On page 4, line 22, delete "certified"
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Association of Family and
Conciliation Courts (AFCC) opposes the bill (prior to its most
recent amendments) for several reasons. First AFCC believes
that since much of the bill is a restatement of the Judicial
Council Standard, it is unnecessary. Moreover, the AFCC writes
that the standards "are evidently somewhat controversial in some
respects so it is hard to predict how acceptable 'codifying' the
Standard would be in reality." However, it is important to note
that current law requires that any supervised visitation
maintained or imposed by the court to be administered in
accordance with those standards, regardless of how
"controversial" they may be.
AB 1674
Page 7
While the additional concerns raised by AFCC have been
eliminated from the current version of the bill, the group does
raise the more general concern that if there is not an adequate
supply of supervised visitation providers, both paid and unpaid,
"more children would be prevented from having any contact with
parents," and that could well result in long-term harm for
children and families. The Family Law Section of the State Bar
generally agrees with AFCC's concerns.
The Association of Certified Family Law Specialists also opposes
the previous version of the bill, writing:
The Standard contained in the Rules of Court is a
comprehensive rule and is not necessary to codify this
rule. It is further unnecessary to require that
supervisors engage in a specific training which is being
developed by the sponsor. The requirements may very well
be duplicative as there are individuals that have mental
health licenses which engage in this business. As
mentioned above, if the costs for the professionals and
entities involved in the business of monitoring parenting
time increases, then the costs will most assuredly pass
down to the consumers, who are the parents. Increased
costs equates to less parent child contact and limiting the
contact even further in these situations may cause severe
trauma to children.
The California Psychological Association also opposed the
previous version of the bill, which required that professional
and therapeutic providers be certified by the Department of
Consumer Affairs. It is not clear what their position is on the
current version of the bill.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Supervised Visitation Service
Providers (sponsor)
Opposition (to a previous version of the bill)
Association of Certified Family Law Specialists
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
AB 1674
Page 8
California Psychological Association
Family Law Section of the State Bar
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
(unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334