BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1674|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1674
Author: Ma (D)
Amended: 8/6/12 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 7/3/12
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Blakeslee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-20, 5/29/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Child custody: visitation
SOURCE : California Association of Supervised
Visitation Service Providers
DIGEST : This bill provides that in any case in which the
court has determined that there is domestic violence, child
abuse, or neglect, and supervision is necessary, the court
shall consider whether to use a professional or
nonprofessional provider based upon the child's best
interest. This bill establishes criteria for
nonprofessional providers, unless stipulated to by the
parties or ordered by the court. This bill also
establishes criteria for professional providers, including
requirements that they receive 24 hours of training, and
create standards for documentation, as specified. This
CONTINUED
AB 1674
Page
2
bill requires professional and nonprofessional providers to
inform parties that no confidential privilege exists, and
that they are obligated to report all suspected child abuse
to the proper authorities.
ANALYSIS : Existing law requires the Judicial Council to
develop standards for supervised visitation providers
taking into consideration the following:
The provider's qualifications, experience, and
education;
Safety and security procedures;
Any conflict of interest;
Maintenance and disclosure of records, including
confidentiality policies;
Procedures for screening, delineation of terms and
conditions, and termination of supervised visitation
services;
Procedures for emergency or extenuating situations;
Orientation to, and guidelines for, cases in which
there are allegations of domestic violence, child abuse,
substance abuse, or special circumstances; and
The legal obligations and responsibilities of
supervisors. (Family Code (FAM) Section 3200)
Existing law 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. (FAM Section 3201)
Existing rules of court set forth standards with which
providers of supervised visitation should comply. Existing
rules of court provide that the goal of these standards is
to ensure the safety and welfare of the child, adults, and
providers of supervised visitation. Once this safety is
achieved, the best interest of the child is the paramount
consideration. These standards include rules concerning
CONTINUED
AB 1674
Page
3
qualifications of providers, required training, safety and
security measures, conflicts of interest, confidentiality,
and maintenance of records. (Rules of Court, rule 5.20)
This bill requires any standards for supervised visitation
providers adopted by the Judicial Council to conform to the
provisions of this bill. This bill requires supervised
visitation providers to be professional providers or
nonprofessional providers, as specified. This bill
requires the court, in any case in which it has determined
there is domestic violence, child abuse, or neglect, as
specified, and supervision is necessary, to consider
whether to use a professional or nonprofessional provider
based upon the child's best interest.
This bill also requires professional providers to receive
24 hours of training in certain subjects.
This bill requires providers of supervised visitation to
advise the parties of certain legal rights, report
suspected child abuse to the appropriate agency, and to
suspend or terminate visitation in certain cases in
accordance with specified procedures.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/7/12)
California Association of Supervised Visitation Service
Providers (source)
California Communities United Institute
La Casa de las Madres
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/7/12)
Association of Family Conciliation Courts
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : In support of this bill, the
author writes:
Currently, there are no verification of completion of
training requirements for providers of supervised child
visitation and safe exchange services in the state. In
CONTINUED
AB 1674
Page
4
California, the Judicial Council has adopted Standard
5.20 of the California Standards of Judicial
Administration, which define standards of practice,
including duties and obligations for providers of
supervised visitation under Family Code section 3200.
However, there is no state regulatory agency that
monitors a supervised visitation provider's compliance
with the 5.20 Standard.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that supervised
visitation providers are complying with the 5.20
Standards to ensure that visitation providers are
properly trained and certified in cases of domestic
violence, child abuse, and sexual abuse.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Association of Family
Conciliation Courts writes:
Limiting access for parents their children based on
allegations of a party can result in no contact at all
for a long period of time. This is especially true for
parents who are self-represented and with minimal, if
any, income due to the cost of professional supervision.
Such significant estrangement and lack of contact
usually only adds to the emotional trauma children
experience with parents separating and can have major
long-term impact on the parent-child relationship. This
then undermines possibilities for reunification when the
court has (hopefully) fully assessed the allegations and
claims and can make detailed orders for the children and
parents.
We agree and understand that there are situations where
professional supervision is necessary. Limiting the
court's discretion to freely (without the
restrictive/presumptive language of this bill) decide
what form of supervision is reasonable under all of the
circumstances, as opposed to only one party's
allegations, is not appropriate.
The limitations this bill proposes to place on that
judicial discretion are not in the best interest of
families and children. The potential long-term
emotional detriment to the children who lose contact
CONTINUED
AB 1674
Page
5
with a parent because of a financial inability to pay
for professional services that are not necessary is too
great a risk.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-20, 5/29/12
AYES: Achadjian, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Blumenfield,
Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles
Calderon, Campos, Carter, Chesbro, Cook, Davis,
Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, Hagman, Halderman,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill, Huber, Huffman,
Knight, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell,
Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino,
Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao,
Wieckowski, Williams, John A. P�rez
NOES: Beall, Bill Berryhill, Block, Conway, Donnelly,
Garrick, Grove, Jeffries, Jones, Logue, Mansoor, Miller,
Morrell, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Silva, Wagner,
Yamada
NO VOTE RECORDED: Alejo, Cedillo, Fletcher, Fong, Hall,
Hueso
RJG:k 8/7/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED