BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
2
4
0
SB 240 (Rubio)
As Amended March 22, 2011
Hearing date: April 26, 2011
Penal Code
AA:dl
TRUANCY:
PARENTAL LIABILITY IN "COLLECTIVE ACTIONS"
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 1317 (Leno) - Ch. 647, Stats. 2010
Support: Disability Rights California (support if amended)
Opposition:None Known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD PARENTS AND GUARDIANS BE EXEMPT FROM PROSECUTION UNDER THE
CHRONIC TRUANCY STATUTE WHERE THEIR CHILD'S ABSENCE FROM SCHOOL IS
DUE TO A "COLLECTIVE ACTION" WHERE A MAJORITY OF PARENTS AND
GUARDIANS ARE WITHHOLDING THEIR CHILDREN FROM SCHOOL BECAUSE OF A
GRIEVANCE, AS SPECIFIED?
(More)
SB 240 (Rubio)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to exempt a parent or guardian from
prosecution under the chronic truancy statute where their
child's absence from school is due to a "collective action"
where a majority of parents or guardians withhold their children
from school because of a grievance presented to the school
administration, as specified.
Current law provides that "every person who commits any act or
omits the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes
or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of 18
years to (become a dependent or delinquent ward of the juvenile
court<1>) or which act or omission contributes thereto, or any
person who, by any act or omission, or by threats, commands, or
persuasion, induces or endeavors to induce any person under the
age of 18 years or any ward or dependent child of the juvenile
court to fail or refuse to conform to a lawful order of the
juvenile court, or to do or to perform any act or to follow any
course of conduct or to so live as would cause or manifestly
tend to cause that person to become or to remain a person within
the (jurisdiction of the dependency or delinquency court, as
specified), is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or
by both fine and imprisonment in a county jail, or may be
released on probation for a period not exceeding five years."
(Penal Code � 272.)
Current law provides that for purposes of these provisions, "a
parent or legal guardian to any person under the age of 18 years
shall have the duty to exercise reasonable care, supervision,
protection, and control over their minor child." (Id.)
---------------------------
<1> Specifically, come within the provisions of Section 300,
601, or 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(More)
SB 240 (Rubio)
PageC
Current law generally provides that a parent or guardian of a
pupil of six years of age or
more who is in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, and who is
subject to compulsory full-time education or compulsory
continuation education, whose child is a chronic truant, who has
failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil's school
attendance, and who has been offered language accessible support
services to address the pupil's truancy, is guilty of a
misdemeanor, as specified. (Penal Code � 270.1.)
This bill exempts a parent or guardian from prosecution under
this section "because of any absence due to a collective action,
. . . ."
This bill would define "collective action" to mean "an action in
which the parents or guardians of a majority of the pupils
enrolled in a grade level at a public elementary or secondary
school withhold their children from attendance at that school
because of a grievance these parents, guardians, pupils, or
other members of the school community are presenting to the
administration of the school or school district."
This bill would provide that, "a collective action commences
when a petition setting forth the grounds for the grievance, and
signed by the parents or guardians of a majority of the pupils
enrolled in a grade level at the public elementary or secondary
school, is presented to the principal of the school, to the
schoolsite council if one exists at that school, and to the
secretary or presiding officer of the governing board of the
school district in which the school is located. Presentation of
the petition shall be accomplished by delivery, during regular
business hours, of an original or copy of the petition to the
school office, with respect to presentation of the petition to
the principal or the schoolsite council, and by delivery of an
original or copy of the petition to the school district office,
with respect to presentation of the petition to the secretary or
presiding officer of the governing board of the school
district."
(More)
SB 240 (Rubio)
PageD
(More)
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 240 (Rubio)
PageF
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Under current law, parents can be prosecuted for a
misdemeanor for removing their children from schools
that are not providing safe, effective learning
environments. SB 240 would allow parents a process in
which they can advocate for their child's education.
Through collective action, parents would not be
subject to prosecution under the truancy laws if they
keep their children out of school when districts are
unresponsive to a request to improve school safety,
education quality, and the social/emotional climate of
their child's school.
SB 240 would remove any criminal penalty for parents
when a majority of them have petitioned their
principal and school board for changes in their
child's classroom and their requests are being
ignored. Our education system had a strong foundation
in the PTA movement who believe, "parents must be
involved in all aspects of their children's education
including its governance and decision making"
(California PTA). SB 240 can revive that tradition in
a modern and meaningful way by giving parents a tool
that will demand attention and command respect. We've
all heard from teachers about unresponsive
administrators. Teachers have tools to make their
voices heard. Parents should have the same tools.
2. What this Bill Would Do; Policy Considerations
As explained above, under current law it can be a crime for a
parent or guardian to allow their elementary or secondary school
child to be truant. Last year, SB 1713 (Leno) was enacted to
create a discrete Penal Code section that specifically sanctions
parents or guardians who fail to reasonably supervise and
encourage a chronically truant pupil's school attendance.
SB 240 (Rubio)
PageG
This bill exempts from this section a parent or guardian where
their child's absence is due to a "collective action,"
essentially defined as a circumstance where a majority of
parents or guardians withhold their children from school
attendance because of a grievance presented to the school
administration, as specified. Members and the author may wish
to discuss the advantages of assuring parents or guardians the
right to use pupil attendance as a collective tool in the
assertion of grievances, and the potential disadvantages to the
extent children lose school days as a result.
As now drafted, the bill does not specify the nature of a
grievance which could underlie an action contemplated by the
bill. However, the bill would require that at least a majority
of parents or guardians sign a petition asserting the grievance.
Members and the author may wish to discuss whether the bill's
current petition requirement would ensure that only serious
grievances would give rise to this exemption, or if "grievance"
categories could or should be identified (for example,
grievances related to the physical safety of students or
administration of the school or school district).
***************