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:  8/20/12 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.

           Senate Floor Amendments  of 8/20/12 clarify that it is the 
          court who determines whether or not supervision of 
          visitation is necessary.

           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 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1674
                                                                Page 
          3

          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 
          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  8/21/12)

          California Association of Supervised Visitation Service 
          Providers (source)
          California Communities United Institute
          La Casa de las Madres

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author: 

             Currently, there are no verification of completion of 
             training requirements for providers of supervised child 
             visitation and safe exchange services in the state.  In 
             California, the Judicial Council has adopted Standard 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                               AB 1674
                                                                Page 
          4

             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.  


           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  8/21/12   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****






                                                           CONTINUED