BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2745
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 8, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Bob Wieckowski, Chair
AB 2745 (Judiciary) - As Introduced: March 4, 2014
SUBJECT : FAMILY LAW
KEY ISSUE : TO IMPROVE THE HANDLING OF FAMILY AND JUVENILE LAW
CASES, SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE RATIFY THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S
CONVERSION OF 10 SUBORDINATE JUDICIAL OFFICER POSITIONS TO
JUDGES FOR FAMILY AND JUVENILE PROCEEDINGS?
SYNOPSIS
This Committee bill makes two non-controversial changes to
family law. First, as required by statute, the bill ratifies
the Judicial Council's authority to convert 10 subordinate
judicial officers (SJOs) to judgeships in the next year,
provided those judges replace SJOs in family or juvenile law
cases. This provision seeks to improve family and juvenile law
cases by increasing the likelihood that these important matters
are presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial
officers. Second, this bill makes a technical cleanup to family
centered case resolution procedures to ensure that the statute
codified by the Legislature on 2010 cannot be reduced by rule of
court, as is the case with all laws. This bill is supported by
the Judicial Council. There is no known opposition.
SUMMARY : Seeks to improve the handling of family and juvenile
law cases in our courts. Specifically, this bill :
1)Ratifies the authority of the Judicial Council to convert 10
subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in
2014-15, provided the conversion of these positions will
result in judges being assigned to family or juvenile law
assignments previously presided over by a subordinate judicial
officer. Provides that this authority is in addition to the
existing authority provided to convert 16 SJOs to judges.
2)Allows the Judicial Council, by rule of court, to increase the
procedures for family centered case resolution set forth in
statute, but not reduce them.
EXISTING LAW :
AB 2745
Page 2
1)Provides that the Legislature shall prescribe the number of
judges and provide for the officers and employees of each
superior court. Provides that the Legislature may provide for
the trial courts to appoint officers such as commissioners to
perform subordinate judicial duties. (California
Constitution, Article VI, Sections 4, 22.)
2)Authorizes the courts to appoint subordinate judicial
officers, and sets forth their duties and titles. (Government
Code Section 71622.)
3)Authorizes the conversion of 16 subordinate judicial officer
positions in eligible superior courts to judgeships each
fiscal year as specified. Authorizes the Judicial Council to
convert up to an additional 10 SJOs to judgeships each year,
upon vacancy and subsequent legislative authorization, if the
conversion of these additional positions will result in judges
being assigned to family or juvenile law assignments
previously presided over by subordinate judicial officers, but
requires that such authority be ratified by the Legislature by
statutory enactment. (Government Code Sections 69615-16.)
4)Allows a court in a dissolution proceeding to order a family
centered case resolution plan, even in the absence of a
stipulation by the parties. Clarifies that family centered
case resolution does not provide the court with any additional
authority to appoint an expert, beyond that permitted under
other provisions of law. Directs Judicial Council, by January
1, 2012, to adopt a rule of court to implement family centered
case resolution. But also allows Judicial Council, by rule,
to modify the case resolution procedures. (Family Code
Section 2450 et seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS : This Committee bill makes two non-controversial
changes to family law. First, as required by statute, the bill
ratifies the Judicial Council's authority to convert 10
subordinate judicial officers (SJOs) to judgeships in the next
year, provided those judges replace SJOs in family or juvenile
law cases. This provision seeks to improve family and juvenile
law cases by increasing the likelihood that these matters are
presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers.
Second, it makes a technical change to family centered case
AB 2745
Page 3
resolution law to ensure that the existing law, passed by the
Legislature in 2010, is followed.
Subordinate Judicial Officer Conversions : This bill seeks to
improve family and juvenile law cases by ratifying the Judicial
Council's authority to convert 10 SJOs to judgeships in 2014-15,
provided the conversion of these positions will result in a
judge being assigned to a family or juvenile law assignment
previously presided over by a subordinate judicial officer.
This will increase the likelihood that these matters will be
presided over by judges and not subordinate judicial officers.
According to the Judicial Council, historically SJO positions
were created and funded at the county level to address courts'
needs for judicial-like resources when new judgeships were
pending or not yet authorized by the Legislature. Unlike
judges, SJOs are not directly accountable to the public, but due
to the shortages of judges, are performing some of the most
complex and sensitive judicial duties. Conversion of these
positions to judgeships when they become vacant makes them more
accountable to the public and, the Judicial Council contends,
helps provide better trust and confidence in the courts.
In 2007, AB 159 (Jones), Chap. 722, was enacted to address a
severe shortage in the number of trial court judgeships. At
that time, the Judicial Council noted potentially serious
consequences flowing from this deficiency in judicial resources,
including a significant decrease in Californians' access to the
courts, compromised public safety, an unstable business climate,
and enormous backlogs in some courts that inhibit fair, timely
and equitable justice. That bill, in addition to authorizing 50
additional judges, authorized the conversion of 162 SJOs, upon
vacancy, to judgeships to utilize the judicial resources more
efficiently and properly limit SJOs to subordinate judicial
duties. The stated findings and declarations supporting the
legislation included the following:
It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
section to restore an appropriate balance between
subordinate judicial officers and judges in the trial
courts by providing for the conversion, as needed, of
subordinate judicial officer positions to judgeships in
courts that assign subordinate judicial officers to act as
temporary judges. The Legislature finds that these
AB 2745
Page 4
positions must be converted to judgeships in order to
ensure that critical case types, including family, probate,
and juvenile law matters, can be heard by judges.
(Government Code Section 69615.)
In 2002 the Judicial Council identified family and juvenile law
matters among those that are of such a nature as to require
judges, rather than SJOs, to preside over them whenever
possible. This Council policy has been echoed repeatedly.
Among its many recommendations, the Blue Ribbon Commission on
Children in Foster Care recommended that "[c]onsistent with
Judicial Council policy, judges-not subordinate judicial
officers-hear dependency and delinquency cases. Pending a full
transition from subordinate judicial officers to judges (through
reassignment or conversion of subordinate judicial officer
positions to judgeships), presiding judges should continue the
assignment of well-qualified and experienced subordinate
judicial officers to juvenile court."
Recognizing the particular need for judges in family and
juvenile law cases, AB 2763 (Judiciary), Chap. 690, Stats. 2010,
authorized the Judicial Council to convert up to an additional
10 SJOs to judgeships each year, if the conversion of these
additional positions will result in a judge being assigned to a
family or juvenile law assignment previously presided over by an
SJO. However, such authorization must be ratified by the
Legislature. This was done by the Legislature in 2013-14 (AB
1403 (Judiciary), Chap. 510, Stats. 2013) and 2011-12 (SB 405
(Corbett), Chap. 705, Stats. 2011). This bill seeks to provide
the Judicial Council with that same ratification for 2014-15.
Case Resolution Technical Clean-Up : Family centered case
resolution was a key provision in the Committee's recent family
law reform legislation -- AB 939 (Chap. 352, Stats. 2010).
Prior to that bill, with the exception of family law, all
general civil and criminal cases had procedures in place that
allowed the court to control the process and pacing of the case
in order to ensure a fair, timely, and just resolution.
However, family courts historically had not been granted the
normal authority of other civil courts to control their case
scheduling without both parties' consent, apparently based on an
antiquated notion that appropriately managing family law cases
could potentially prevent parties from reconciling. As a
result, one party could potentially drag out a case for a very
long time in the hopes of forcing the other party to agree to an
AB 2745
Page 5
unfavorable settlement.
In order to modernize and align family court practices with
those of other courts, AB 939 allowed judges, with input of the
litigants and their attorneys, to have the ability to control
the manner and pace of the litigation by a method appropriate to
each case, which could include matters such as establishing
discovery schedules and cut-off dates, and setting dates for
exchange of expert witness information, even in the absence of a
stipulation by the parties.
Case management has now been implemented across the state and is
helping the courts, particularly in these difficult budget
times, better serve families. This bill does not change any
requirement concerning case management, but simply clarifies
that the Judicial Council may not reduce the statutory
requirements, absent legislative action, but may, should it deem
it appropriate to do so, increase requirements of case
management. This change is simply a technical cleanup to a
provision that pre-dated AB 939.
In support, the Judicial Council states that the bill "makes
clear the legislative intent of setting a floor for case
management in dissolution and nullity matters. The bill
appropriately recognizes the Judicial Council's knowledge of and
experience with these cases, and the levels of management they
require, while setting a baseline that current rules of court
already exceed."
Pending Related Legislation : SB 1190 (Jackson) authorizes two
additional appellate court judges and 50 additional trial court
judges. That bill is awaiting hearing in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Judicial Council
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Leora Gershenzon / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 2745
Page 6