Existing law authorizes a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. Existing law also authorizes counties to establish multidisciplinary personnel teams regarding issues like child abuse to allow various agencies to collaborate.

This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team and a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence or human trafficking. The bill would authorize members of those multidisciplinary personnel teams to disclose to one another information and records that may be confidential but that are relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those crimes. The bill would impose additional requirements on the disclosure and use of that information, including, among other things, that members of the team not disclose confidential information obtained from an individual unless they have obtained that individuals informed, written, and reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, as specified. The bill would make information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as records created in the course of an investigation, confidential and protected from discovery and disclosure. The bill would make discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings confidential, unless required by law, and would prohibit testimony concerning those discussions from being admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

Because this bill would exclude from a criminal proceeding information and records provided to the team and records created in the course of an investigation, as well as testimony concerning discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of information between members of the multidisciplinary personnel teams, it requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

The bill would make existing civil and criminal penalties for inappropriate disclosure of confidential information applicable to multidisciplinary team members. By expanding the scope of persons subject to criminal penalties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law authorizes a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. Existing law also authorizes counties to establish multidisciplinary personnel teams regarding issues like child abuse to allow various agencies to collaborate.

This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team and a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence or human trafficking. The bill would authorize members of those multidisciplinary personnel teams to disclose to one another information and records that may be confidential but that are relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those crimes. The bill would impose additional requirements on the disclosure and use of that information, including, among other things, that members of the team not disclose confidential information obtained from an individual unless they have obtained that individuals informed, written, and reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, as specified. The bill would make information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as records created in the course of an investigation, confidential and protected from discovery and disclosure. The bill would make discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings confidential, unless required by law, and would prohibit testimony concerning those discussions from being admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

Because this bill would exclude from a criminal proceeding information and records provided to the team and records created in the course of an investigation, as well as testimony concerning discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of information between members of the multidisciplinary personnel teams, it requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

The bill would make existing civil and criminal penalties for inappropriate disclosure of confidential information applicable to multidisciplinary team members. By expanding the scope of persons subject to criminal penalties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law authorizes a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. Existing law also authorizes counties to establish multidisciplinary personnel teams regarding issues like child abuse to allow various agencies to collaborate.

This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team and a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence or human trafficking. The bill would authorize members of those multidisciplinary personnel teams to disclose, for a limited amount of time, disclose to one another information and records that may be confidential but that are relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those crimes. The bill would impose additional requirements on the disclosure and use of that information, including, among other things, that members of the team not disclose confidential information obtained from an individual unless they have obtained that individuals informed, written, and reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, as specified. The bill would make information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as records created in the course of an investigation, confidential and protected from discovery and disclosure. The bill would make discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings confidential, unless required by law, and would prohibit testimony concerning those discussions from being admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

The California Constitution provides for the Right to Truth-In-Evidence, which requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature to exclude any relevant evidence from any criminal proceeding, as specified.

Because this bill would exclude from a criminal proceeding information and records provided to the team and records created in the course of an investigation, as well as testimony concerning discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of information between members of the multidisciplinary personnel teams, it requires a ²/₃ vote of the Legislature.

The bill would make existing civil and criminal penalties for inappropriate disclosure of confidential information applicable to multidisciplinary team members. By expanding the scope of persons subject to criminal penalties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law authorizes a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. Existing law also authorizes counties to establish multidisciplinary personnel teams regarding issues like child abuse to allow various agencies to collaborate.

This bill would authorize a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team and a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence or human trafficking. The bill would authorize members of those multidisciplinary personnel teams to disclose disclose, for a limited amount of time, to one another information and records that may be confidential but that are relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those crimes. The bill would impose additional requirements on the disclosure and use of that information, including, among other things, that members of the team not disclose confidential information obtained from an individual unless they have obtained that individuals informed, written, and reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, as specified. The bill would make information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as records created in the course of an investigation, confidential and protected from discovery and disclosure. The bill would make discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings confidential, unless required by law, and would prohibit testimony concerning those discussions from being admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

Under existing law, the Department of Veterans Affairs constitutes a public corporation that is authorized, on behalf of the state, to hold property, request and receive donations, contract, sue and be sued, and exercise all other rights and powers provided by the Constitution and laws of the state as belonging to public corporations.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 998

Author:(Grayson)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2018

2/3 vote

(vote not relevant)

(Pub. S.)

Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.

SUMMARY: Authorizes a city, county, city and county, or a nonprofit organization to establish domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those cases.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill and instead:

1. Provide that a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.
2. State that a domestic violence multidisciplinary team may include, but not be limited to, any of the following:
   1. Law enforcement personnel;
   2. Medical personnel;
   3. Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel;
   4. District attorneys and city attorneys;
   5. Victim-witness program personnel;
   6. Domestic violence shelter service staff;
   7. Sexual assault counselors;
   8. Domestic violence counselors;
   9. Social service agency staff members;
   10. Child welfare agency social workers;
   11. County health department staff;
   12. City or County welfare and public assistance workers;
   13. Nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
   14. Civil legal service providers; and,
   15. Human trafficking caseworkers.
3. Authorize team members to disclose and exchange information and records to and with one another relating to incidents of domestic violence that may be confidential if the member of the team having that information or records reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or the provision of domestic violence services and support.
4. Provide that all discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of information or records during team meetings is confidential unless disclosure is required by law.
5. State that, notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning those discussions is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.
6. Provide that disclosure and exchange of information may occur telephonically or electronically if there is adequate verification.
7. Prohibit disclosure and exchange of information with anyone other than members of the team.
8. Allow the team to designate qualified persons to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to specified confidentiality provisions.
9. State that the sharing of information shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the multidisciplinary team to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the teams.
10. Prohibit team members who have obtained confidential information from an individual from disclosing that information with one another unless the individual has consented to the disclosure, as specified. Before consent is obtained, the individual must be notified that the information may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without his or her consent if required by law.
11. Provide that a disclosure of information consented to by an individual is not deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, including those in specified sections of the Business and Professions and Evidence Codes.
12. State that every member of the multidisciplinary team who receives information or records regarding children or families in his or her capacity as a team member is under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records.
13. Require that information or records obtained be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
14. Provide that these provisions shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.
15. State that information and records communicated or provided to the team members by providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a domestic violence investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.
16. Allow for identical multidisciplinary teams for human trafficking.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to implement, with input from experts, a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in California in the handling of domestic violence complaints and also shall develop guidelines for law enforcement response to domestic violence.
2. Requires POST to implement, with input from experts, a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in California in the handling of human trafficking complaints and also shall develop guidelines for law enforcement response to human trafficking.
3. Authorizes counties to develop multidisciplinary teams regarding issues like child abuse and elder abuse for the purpose of increasing cooperation between agencies.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill required transparency and modernization of the admissions and waiting list policies for the CalVet Veterans Homes

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: "Existing law allows Family Justice Center (FJC) personnel to share confidential information amongst themselves in order to implement collaborative remedies for individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. Unfortunately, not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. Without an FJC there is no ability for advocates to share information about human trafficking victims or domestic violence victims. The Multidisciplinary Team is an established model for assisting individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. AB 998 will allow counties both with and without FJCs to cooperate and leverage resources for the vulnerable victims of human trafficking and domestic violence."
2. Multidisciplinary Team Models in Other Areas: Under current law, collaboration through a multidisciplinary team model is permitted in the areas of elder abuse and child abuse. The theories behind these models are to allow multiple service providers and government agencies to act in a collaborative fashion to help meet the needs of the community as well as parties involved. The model has been used for cases of child abuse and elder abuse because the parties involved have had to interact with multiple agencies and interests, and the victims are often viewed as coming from a vulnerable community. As in the case of child abuse and elder abuse, the parties involved in domestic abuse and human trafficking are similarly situated. There is a natural intersection between the need for social services and the criminal justice system in these situations.
3. Prior Legislation: AB 704 (Grayson) of 2017 was substantially similar to this bill. AB 704 was never heard in this committee because the hearing was cancelled at the request of the author.

Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0005047

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 998

Author:(Grayson)

As Amended Ver:August 21, 2018

Majority vote

(vote not relevant)

Original Committee Reference: V.A.

SUMMARY: Authorizes a city, county, city and county, or a nonprofit organization to establish domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of those cases.

The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill and instead:

1. Provide that a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.
2. State that a domestic violence multidisciplinary team may include, but not be limited to, any of the following:
   1. Law enforcement personnel;
   2. Medical personnel;
   3. Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel;
   4. District attorneys and city attorneys;
   5. Victim-witness program personnel;
   6. Domestic violence shelter service staff;
   7. Sexual assault counselors;
   8. Domestic violence counselors;
   9. Social service agency staff members;
   10. Child welfare agency social workers;
   11. County health department staff;
   12. City or County welfare and public assistance workers;
   13. Nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
   14. Civil legal service providers; and,
   15. Human trafficking caseworkers.
3. Authorize team members to disclose and exchange information and records to and with one another relating to incidents of domestic violence that may be confidential if the member of the team having that information or records reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or the provision of domestic violence services and support.
4. Provide that all discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of information or records during team meetings is confidential unless disclosure is required by law.
5. State that, notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning those discussions is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.
6. Provide that disclosure and exchange of information may occur telephonically or electronically if there is adequate verification.
7. Prohibit disclosure and exchange of information with anyone other than members of the team.
8. Allow the team to designate qualified persons to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to specified confidentiality provisions.
9. State that the sharing of information shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the multidisciplinary team to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the teams.
10. Prohibit team members who have obtained confidential information from an individual from disclosing that information with one another unless the individual has consented to the disclosure, as specified. Before consent is obtained, the individual must be notified that the information may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without his or her consent if required by law.
11. Provide that a disclosure of information consented to by an individual is not deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, including those in specified sections of the Business and Professions and Evidence Codes.
12. State that every member of the multidisciplinary team who receives information or records regarding children or families in his or her capacity as a team member is under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records.
13. Require that information or records obtained be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
14. Provide that these provisions shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.
15. State that information and records communicated or provided to the team members by providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a domestic violence investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.
16. Allow for identical multidisciplinary teams for human trafficking.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to implement, with input from experts, a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in California in the handling of domestic violence complaints and also shall develop guidelines for law enforcement response to domestic violence.
2. Requires POST to implement, with input from experts, a course or courses of instruction for the training of law enforcement officers in California in the handling of human trafficking complaints and also shall develop guidelines for law enforcement response to human trafficking.
3. Authorizes counties to develop multidisciplinary teams regarding issues like child abuse and elder abuse for the purpose of increasing cooperation between agencies.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill required transparency and modernization of the admissions and waiting list policies for the CalVet Veterans Homes

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: "Existing law allows Family Justice Center (FJC) personnel to share confidential information amongst themselves in order to implement collaborative remedies for individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. Unfortunately, not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. Without an FJC there is no ability for advocates to share information about human trafficking victims or domestic violence victims. The Multidisciplinary Team is an established model for assisting individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. AB 998 will allow counties both with and without FJCs to cooperate and leverage resources for the vulnerable victims of human trafficking and domestic violence."
2. Multidisciplinary Team Models in Other Areas: Under current law, collaboration through a multidisciplinary team model is permitted in the areas of elder abuse and child abuse. The theories behind these models are to allow multiple service providers and government agencies to act in a collaborative fashion to help meet the needs of the community as well as parties involved. The model has been used for cases of child abuse and elder abuse because the parties involved have had to interact with multiple agencies and interests, and the victims are often viewed as coming from a vulnerable community. As in the case of child abuse and elder abuse, the parties involved in domestic abuse and human trafficking are similarly situated. There is a natural intersection between the need for social services and the criminal justice system in these situations.
3. Prior Legislation: AB 704 (Grayson) of the current legislative session was substantially similar to this bill. AB 704 was never heard in this committee because the hearing was cancelled at the request of the author.

Analysis Prepared by: Sandy Uribe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004986

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 998

Author: Grayson (D), et al.

Amended: 8/21/18 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/19/18

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/3/18

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not relevant

SUBJECT: Multidisciplinary teams: human trafficking and domestic violence

SOURCE: Contra Costa Family Justice Center

DIGEST:

This bill creates both domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams (MDT) that can collaborate to respond to and support survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. This bill allows the MDT members to share confidential information with one another.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/18 remove the 30-day time limit for information sharing. Senate Judiciary Committee amendments included the “time-limited informed consent” provision which already addresses the time frame in which information can be shared.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes city, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (a).)
2. Defines family justice centers as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, or human trafficking from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (c).)
3. Declares that nothing in this section is intended to abrogate existing laws regarding privacy or information sharing. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (e).)
4. States that members of a MDT engaged in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect may disclose and exchange information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of child abuse that may also be a part of a juvenile court record or otherwise designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse, or the provision of child welfare services. All discussions relative to the disclosure or exchange of any such information or writings during team meetings are confidential unless disclosure is required by law. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning any such discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 830.)
5. States that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, members of a child abuse MDT may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of child abuse that may also be designed as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonable believes it is general relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of child abuse. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(1).)
6. Requires that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of child abuse multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(2).)
7. Allows disclosure and exchange of information shall not be made to anyone other than members of the child abuse MDT, and those qualified, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(3).)
8. States that the child abuse MDT may designate persons qualified to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (f). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (d).)
9. States that the sharing of information shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the child abuse MDT to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (e).)
10. States every member of the child abuse MDT who receives information or records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained ensuring the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (f).)
11. Requires that this section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (g).)
12. States information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a child abuse or neglect investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (h).)
13. Provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, or refuse to disclose any matter, or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing. (Evid. Code Sec. 911.)
14. Governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose confidential communications made in the course of certain relationships, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. Attorney-client (Evid. Code Sec. 954);
    2. Lawyer referral service-client (Evid. Code Sec. 966);
    3. Spouses (Evid. Code Sec. 980);
    4. Physician-patient (Evid. Code Sec. 994);
    5. Sexual assault counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1035.8);
    6. Domestic violence counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1037.5); and
    7. Human trafficking caseworker-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1038).
15. Provides that the right of a person to claim specified privileges is waived with respect to a protected communication if the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of that communication or consented to disclosure, without coercion.
16. Provides that a disclosure does not constitute a waiver where it was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the lawyer, lawyer referral service, physician, psychotherapist, sexual assault counselor, domestic violence counselor, or human trafficking caseworker was consulted. (Evid. Code Sec. 912(a), (d).)
17. Provides that if a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of a recognized privileged relation, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence, and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential. A communication does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it was communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication. (Evid. Code Sec. 917.)

This bill:

1. Allows a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization establish a domestic violence and human trafficking MDT consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.
2. States that a domestic violence and human trafficking MDT may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:
   1. Law enforcement personnel.
   2. Medical personnel.
   3. Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel.
   4. District attorneys and city attorneys.
   5. Victim-witness program personnel.
   6. Sexual assault counselors.
   7. Domestic violence counselors.
   8. Social service agency staff members.
   9. Child welfare agency social workers.
   10. County health department staff.
   11. City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
   12. Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
   13. Civil legal service providers.
   14. Human trafficking caseworkers.
3. States that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected domestic violence or human trafficking, members of the MDTs engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident that may also be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential, and testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding unless required by law.
4. States that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this bill may occur telephonically or electronically if there is adequate verification.
5. States that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this bill shall not be made to anyone other than members of the domestic violence or human trafficking MDT and those qualified, as specified.
6. States that the domestic violence or human trafficking MDTs may designate persons qualified to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions, as specified.
7. States that the sharing of information permitted under subdivision (c) shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the MDTs to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the MDTs.
8. States that members of the team that have confidential information obtained from an individual shall not disclose that information to and with one another unless the member has obtained that individual’s informed, written, reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, in accordance with all applicable state and federal confidentiality laws, or it is otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court order. Before that consent is obtained, a member of the team is required to inform the individual that the information may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without that individual’s consent if required by law.
9. States that a disclosure of information consented to by an individual shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, as specified.
10. States that every member of the MDT who receives information or records regarding children or families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
11. Provides that this bill shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.
12. States that information and records communicated or provided to the team members by providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a domestic violence investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.

Background

In the 1970s and 1980s, an abundance of domestic violence disputes were filed and spurred a growing awareness in the prevalence and severity of the intimate partner violence. The awareness was coupled with increased criticism of the police and how they were not adequately responding to victims of domestic violence. The result of insufficient and uncompleted police action may be fatal.

Human trafficking involves compelling or coercing a person or group to provide labor or services, or engage in sex acts. The coercion can be subtle or overt, physical or psychological, and may involve use of violence, threats, manipulation, or debt bondage. California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States. In 2016, there were 1,331 cases of trafficking. Of these cases, 1,051 were sex trafficking cases, 147 were labor trafficking cases, 46 were both labor and sex trafficking, and 86 cases were unspecified.

Family Justice Centers (FJCs) provides collaborated approaches for victims of their families to report a crime, provide a complete statement, receive assistance to obtain temporary restraining orders, find safe housing, meet with their prosecutors, and more. Currently, there are 21 counties in California that have FJCs taking this multidisciplinary and collaborative approach.

Not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. If counties do not have the resources to establish a FJC, how will new MDTs be supported?

The amendments taken in Senate Judiciary Committee on August 6, 2018, in Penal Code Sections 13752 and 13753, subdivisions (c) to (h), address concerns around Brady Disclosure, confidentiality, disclosure, and exchange of information issues.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/21/18)

Contra Costa Family Justice Center (source)

County Health Executives Association of California

District Attorney of Contra Costa County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/21/18)

None received

Prepared by: Elle Chen / PUB. S. /

8/22/18 14:36:46

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 998

Author: Grayson (D), et al.

Amended: 8/6/18 in Senate

Vote: 27

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/19/18

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Jackson

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/3/18

AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Monning, Stern, Wieckowski

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Not relevant

SUBJECT: Multidisciplinary teams: human trafficking and domestic violence

SOURCE: Contra Costa Family Justice Center

DIGEST:

This bill creates both domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams (MDT) that can collaborate to respond to and support survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. This bill allows the MDT members to share confidential information with one another.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes city, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (a).)
2. Defines family justice centers as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, or human trafficking from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (c).)
3. Declares that nothing in this section is intended to abrogate existing laws regarding privacy or information sharing. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (e).)
4. States that members of a MDT engaged in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect may disclose and exchange information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of child abuse that may also be a part of a juvenile court record or otherwise designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse, or the provision of child welfare services. All discussions relative to the disclosure or exchange of any such information or writings during team meetings are confidential unless disclosure is required by law. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning any such discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 830.)
5. States that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, members of a child abuse MDT may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of child abuse that may also be designed as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonable believes it Is general relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of child abuse. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(1).)
6. Requires that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of child abuse multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(2).)
7. Allows disclosure and exchange of information shall not be made to anyone other than members of the child abuse MDT, and those qualified, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(3).)
8. States that the child abuse MDT may designate persons qualified to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (f). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (d).)
9. States that the sharing of information shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the child abuse MDT to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (e).)
10. States every member of the child abuse MDT who receives information or records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained ensuring the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (f).)
11. Requires that this section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (g).)
12. States information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a child abuse or neglect investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (h).)
13. Provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, or refuse to disclose any matter, or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing. (Evid. Code Sec. 911.)
14. Governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose confidential communications made in the course of certain relationships, including, but not limited to, the following:
    1. Attorney-client (Evid. Code Sec. 954);
    2. Lawyer referral service-client (Evid. Code Sec. 966);
    3. Spouses (Evid. Code Sec. 980);
    4. Physician-patient (Evid. Code Sec. 994);
    5. Sexual assault counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1035.8);
    6. Domestic violence counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1037.5); and
    7. Human trafficking caseworker-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1038).
15. Provides that the right of a person to claim specified privileges is waived with respect to a protected communication if the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of that communication or consented to disclosure, without coercion.
16. Provides that a disclosure does not constitute a waiver where it was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the lawyer, lawyer referral service, physician, psychotherapist, sexual assault counselor, domestic violence counselor, or human trafficking caseworker was consulted. (Evid. Code Sec. 912(a), (d).)
17. Provides that if a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of a recognized privileged relation, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence, and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential. A communication does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it was communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication. (Evid. Code Sec. 917.)

This bill:

1. Allows a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization establish a domestic violence and human trafficking MDT consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.
2. States that a domestic violence and human trafficking MDT may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:
   1. Law enforcement personnel.
   2. Medical personnel.
   3. Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel.
   4. District attorneys and city attorneys.
   5. Victim-witness program personnel.
   6. Sexual assault counselors.
   7. Domestic violence counselors.
   8. Social service agency staff members.
   9. Child welfare agency social workers.
   10. County health department staff.
   11. City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
   12. Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
   13. Civil legal service providers.
   14. Human trafficking caseworkers.
3. States that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected domestic violence or human trafficking, members of the MDTs engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident that may also be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of domestic violence or human trafficking. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential, and testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding unless required by law.
4. States that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this bill may occur telephonically or electronically if there is adequate verification.
5. States that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this bill shall not be made to anyone other than members of the domestic violence or human trafficking MDT and those qualified, as specified.
6. States that the domestic violence or human trafficking MDTs may designate persons qualified to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions, as specified.
7. States that the sharing of information permitted under subdivision (c) shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the MDTs to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the MDTs.
8. States that members of the team that have confidential information obtained from an individual shall not disclose that information to and with one another unless the member has obtained that individual’s informed, written, reasonably time-limited consent to the disclosure, in accordance with all applicable state and federal confidentiality laws, or it is otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court order. Before that consent is obtained, a member of the team is required to inform the individual that the information may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without that individual’s consent if required by law.
9. States that a disclosure of information consented to by an individual shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, as specified.
10. States that every member of the MDT who receives information or records regarding children or families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.
11. Provides that this bill shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.
12. States that information and records communicated or provided to the team members by providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a domestic violence investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.

Background

In the 1970s and 1980s, an abundance of domestic violence disputes were filed and spurred a growing awareness in the prevalence and severity of the intimate partner violence. The awareness was coupled with increased criticism of the police and how they were not adequately responding to victims of domestic violence. The result of insufficient and uncompleted police action may be fatal.

Human trafficking involves compelling or coercing a person or group to provide labor or services, or engage in sex acts. The coercion can be subtle or overt, physical or psychological, and may involve use of violence, threats, manipulation, or debt bondage. California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States. In 2016, there were 1,331 cases of trafficking. Of these cases, 1,051 were sex trafficking cases, 147 were labor trafficking cases, 46 were both labor and sex trafficking, and 86 cases were unspecified.

Family Justice Centers (FJCs) provides collaborated approaches for victims of their families to report a crime, provide a complete statement, receive assistance to obtain temporary restraining orders, find safe housing, meet with their prosecutors, and more. Currently, there are 21 counties in California that have FJCs taking this multidisciplinary and collaborative approach.

Not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. If counties do not have the resources to establish a FJC, how will new MDTs be supported?

The amendments taken in Senate Judiciary Committee on August 6, 2018, in Penal Code Sections 13752 and 13753, subdivisions (c) to (h), address concerns around Brady Disclosure, confidentiality, disclosure, and exchange of information issues.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/18)

Contra Costa Family Justice Center (source)

County Health Executives Association of California

District Attorney of Contra Costa County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/18)

None received

Prepared by: Elle Chen / PUB. S. /

8/15/18 15:58:53

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair

2017-2018 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 998 (Author:Grayson)

Version: May 14, 2018

Hearing Date: July 3, 2018

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: CK

SUBJECT

Multidisciplinary teams: human trafficking and domestic violence

DESCRIPTION

This bill would provide for the creation of both domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams (MDT) that could collaborate to respond to and support survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. The bill would allow the MDT members to share confidential information with one another.

BACKGROUND

AB 1623 (Atkins, Ch. 85, Stats. 2014) provided for the establishment of multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice centers (FJC) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. (See Pen. Code Sec. 13750.) The goal was to allow a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish an FJC to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking.

FJCs can be comprised of a variety of staff members, including:

• law enforcement personnel;
• medical personnel;
• district attorneys and city attorneys;
• victim-witness program personnel;
• domestic violence shelter service staff;
• community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates;
• social service agency staff members;
• child welfare agency social workers;
• county health department staff;
• city or county welfare and public assistance workers;
• nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
• civil legal service providers;
• supervised volunteers from partner agencies; or
• other professionals providing services.

AB 1623 made clear that victims could not be denied for having a criminal history and access to services was not conditioned on participation in the criminal justice system or cooperation with law enforcement. FJCs are required to consult with community-based domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse and their advocates in the operations process of the FJC, and shall establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers and advocates.

This bill would provide for the creation of both domestic violence and human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel teams (MDT) that could collaborate to respond to and support survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking.

CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW

Existing law provides a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may each establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center (FJC) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. Such FJCs are subject to certain guidelines and must adhere to certain confidentiality and consent requirements. (Pen. Code Sec. 13750.)

Existing law provides that notwithstanding any other provision of law, members of a multidisciplinary personnel team (MDT) engaged in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect may disclose and exchange information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of child abuse that may also be a part of a juvenile court record or otherwise designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse, or the provision of child welfare services. All discussions relative to the disclosure or exchange of any such information or writings during team meetings are confidential unless disclosure is required by law. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning any such discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 830.)

Existing law provides that members of a juvenile justice MDT engaged in the prevention, identification, and control of crime may disclose and exchange nonprivileged information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of juvenile crime that may be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or control of juvenile crime or criminal street gang activity. Every member of a juvenile justice MDT who receives such information or writings shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same penalties for violating those obligations as the person disclosing or providing the information or writings. The information obtained shall be maintained in a manner which ensures the protection of confidentiality. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 830.1.)

Existing law provides that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, members of a child abuse MDT engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of child abuse may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of child abuse that may also be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of child abuse. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of the child abuse multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information. Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section shall not be made to anyone other than members of the child abuse MDT. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 18961.7.)

Existing law provides that the sharing of information permitted above shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the child abuse MDT to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the child abuse multidisciplinary team. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 18961.7.)

Existing law provides that every member of the child abuse MDT who receives information or records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights. These provisions shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law. (Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 18961.7.)

Existing law generally provides that no person has a privilege to refuse to be a witness, or refuse to disclose any matter, or to refuse to produce any writing, object, or other thing. (Evid. Code Sec. 911.)

Existing law governs the admissibility of evidence in court proceedings and generally provides a privilege to refuse to testify or otherwise disclose confidential communications made in the course of certain relationships, including the following:

• attorney-client (Evid. Code Sec. 954);
• lawyer referral service-client (Evid. Code Sec. 966);
• spouses (Evid. Code Sec. 980);
• physician-patient (Evid. Code Sec. 994);
• psychotherapist-patient (Evid. Code Sec. 1014);
• clergy-penitent (Evid. Code Sec. 1033, 1034);
• sexual assault counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1035.8);
• domestic violence counselor-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1037.5); and
• human trafficking caseworker-victim (Evid. Code Sec. 1038).

Existing law provides that the right of a person to claim specified privileges is waived with respect to a protected communication if the holder of the privilege has disclosed a significant part of that communication or consented to disclosure, without coercion. Existing law provides that a disclosure does not constitute a waiver where it was reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes for which the lawyer, lawyer referral service, physician, psychotherapist, sexual assault counselor, domestic violence counselor, or human trafficking caseworker was consulted. (Evid. Code Sec. 912(a), (d).)

Existing law provides that if a privilege is claimed on the ground that the matter sought to be disclosed is a communication made in confidence in the course of a recognized privileged relation, the communication is presumed to have been made in confidence, and the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden of proof to establish that the communication was not confidential. A communication does not lose its privileged character for the sole reason that it was communicated by electronic means or because persons involved in the delivery, facilitation, or storage of electronic communication may have access to the content of the communication. (Evid. Code Sec. 917.)

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding any other law, a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team (MDT) consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.

This bill would authorize MDT members to disclose and exchange information and records to and with one another relating to incidents of domestic violence that may be confidential if the member of the team having that information or records reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or the provision of domestic violence services and support. All discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings would be confidential unless disclosure is required by law. Notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning those discussions would not be admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

This bill would provide that a domestic violence MDT may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:

• law enforcement personnel;
• medical personnel;
• psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel;
• district attorneys and city attorneys;
• victim-witness program personnel;
• domestic violence shelter service staff;
• sexual assault counselors, as defined in Section 1035.2 of the Evidence Code;
• domestic violence counselors, as defined in Section 1037.1 of the Evidence Code;
• social service agency staff members;
• child welfare agency social workers;
• county health department staff;
• city or county welfare and public assistance workers;
• nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
• civil legal service providers; or
• human trafficking caseworkers.

This bill would allow for identical MDTs for human trafficking.

COMMENT

1. Stated need for the bill

Existing law allows Family Justice Center (FJC) personnel to share confidential information amongst themselves in order to implement collaborative remedies for individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. Unfortunately, not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. Without an FJC there is no ability for advocates to share information about human trafficking victims or domestic violence victims. In addition, FJC-based MDTs have come across situations where they are unable to get advanced, informed, written, and time-limited consent but must address complex or high risk situations. In those cases the MDT must try to de-identify the case information, which restricts discussion and collaboration and ultimately frustrates their ability to provide services and support.

2. Ensuring appropriate protection of confidential information in MDTs

An evidentiary privilege permits an otherwise competent witness to refuse to testify and/or prevent another from testifying. Privileges are policy exclusions, unrelated to the reliability of the information involved, which are granted because it is considered more important to keep that information confidential than it is to require disclosure of all the information relevant to the issues in a pending proceeding. For example, to protect the lawyer-client relationship, it is necessary to prevent disclosure of confidential communications made in the course of that relationship. (Comments to Evid. Code Sec. 910.) Whereas privileges of a witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence are governed by the principles of common law as interpreted by United States district courts in light of “reason and experience,” the only privileges that are recognized in California are those statutory privileges expressly codified in the Evidence Code. (See Fed. Rules of Evid., Rule 501; Evid. Code Sec. 911.)

To date, California has codified numerous evidentiary privileges, recognizing the need to protect the confidentiality of certain communications. Among those are the: lawyer-client privilege, lawyer referral service-client privilege, spousal privilege, confidential marital communications privilege, physician-patient privilege, psychotherapist-patient privilege, clergyman-penitent privilege, sexual assault counselor-victim privilege, domestic violence counselor-victim privilege, and human trafficking caseworker-victim privilege. Yet other statutory privileges protect official information acquired in confidence by a public employee and the identity of informants, protect persons from having to reveal their votes in public elections, and protect against disclosure of trade secrets. (Evid. Code Sec. 930 et seq.)

Given the benefits that Family Justice Centers (FJC) can provide, this bill seeks to provide similar collaboration in communities where FJCs do not exist through the establishment of multidisciplinary personnel teams (MDT). The bill would create two models for MDTs that would specifically address domestic violence and human trafficking, respectively. This bill would allow the MDT members to disclose and exchange information and records among the team relating to incidents of domestic violence or human trafficking that may be confidential. This latter element presents concerns as there is arguably a need for more robust guidelines for such disclosures and protections and limitations on the information that is shared.

This bill would provide that discussions involving the confidential information are confidential themselves, unless disclosure is required by law. In addition, the bill would provide that testimony concerning such discussions is inadmissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. These provisions do not go far enough to protect the types of information that would likely be shared among the various MDT members. Given the likely makeup of these teams, including domestic violence and human trafficking counselors, there could be a great deal of very sensitive, privileged information being shared. Further protections are warranted.

3. Using the FJC provisions regarding confidentiality and consent as a model

AB 1623 required that FJCs create and maintain client consent policies that ensured compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the types of information and documents involved in the provision of services to clients. FJCs are required to have a designated privacy officer to develop and oversee the privacy policies and procedures consistent with state and federal privacy laws and the Fair Information Practice Principles promulgated by the United States Department of Homeland Security.

FJCs are required to obtain informed, written, reasonably time limited, consent from the victim before sharing information obtained from the victim among the team members. However, access to services cannot be conditioned on the signing of a client consent form to share information. Each FJC is required to inform victims that information shared with staff members or partner agencies at an FJC may be shared with law enforcement professionals without the victim’s consent if there is a mandatory duty to report, or the client is a danger to himself or herself, or others. Each family justice center shall obtain written acknowledgment that the victim has been informed of this policy.

The law further provides that a victim’s consent to sharing information does not serve as a universal waiver of any existing evidentiary privileges or confidentiality provisions that protect the relevant communications or documents.

In addition, MDTs in other contexts, such as for juvenile justice or child abuse prevention, have clear guidelines on how information should be handled, the terms under which it can be disclosed, and the policies that must be in place.

In order to ensure that the information shared among domestic violence and human trafficking MDT members is adequately protected, similar provisions must be applied in these contexts. Therefore, inclusion of the following provisions in this bill is suggested:

• disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this bill shall not be made to anyone other than members of the relevant MDT;
• protocols need to be established that govern how and what information may be shared by the MDTs to ensure compliance with state and federal law;
• members of the team that have confidential information obtained from an individual shall not disclose that information to and with one another unless they have obtained that individual’s informed, written, reasonably time limited consent to the disclosure, in accordance with all applicable state and federal confidentiality laws, or it is otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court order;
• individuals must be notified of the possibility that such information may be required to be shared with law enforcement or other entities where required by law before providing consent;
• any disclosures of information consented to by an individual shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, including those contained in Sections 2263, 2918, 4982, and 6068 of the Business and Professions Code, and Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code; and
• MDT members receiving information shall be under the same obligations regarding privacy and confidentiality as the person disclosing or providing the information.

These provisions will ensure that the exchange of information within MDTs does not violate applicable laws and provides the intended beneficiaries with the utmost respect and protection.

Specifically in regard to informed consent, the sponsor of the bill, the Contra Costa Family Justice Center, agrees that obtaining informed consent is a “best practice.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of California writes in opposition that “[a]s currently drafted, AB 998 does not include [any] protections for ensuring that team members keep information private and confidential. Enacting legislation for other multidisciplinary investigative units do provide such protections. . . . AB 998 should be amended to include similar protections.”

In addition, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, which represents over 1,000 advocates, organizations, and allied individuals across the state, writes in opposition to the bill, as it is in print, based primarily on this issue:

AB 998 allows various professionals on a multi-disciplinary team to share confidential information about a survivor with another team member without any notice to, and without the consent of, the survivor. Confidentiality is essential to the safety and well-being of domestic violence and human trafficking survivors. Unauthorized disclosures of a survivor’s information can compromise their safety, as well as the safety of their family members, by exposing the survivor’s identity and location to the person who wants to harm them. Disclosure of a survivor’s information without consent also perpetuates power and control dynamics by preventing the survivor from being able to control when and how their information is shared.

Accordingly, all information shared between survivors and domestic violence counselors, sexual assault counselors, and human trafficking caseworkers is protected as confidential and privileged under state law (see Evidence Code Section 1035-1038.2) and cannot be disclosed without the survivor’s informed consent. Survivors also seek services from attorneys, therapists, and other professionals who have privileged communications with survivors under state law. In addition, the federal Violence Against Women Act and Family Violence Prevention Services Act require federally-funded domestic violence and human trafficking organizations to obtain written, time-limited and informed release of information from a survivor to share any individual personally identifying information about that survivor with anyone outside the agency.

Domestic violence and human trafficking survivors do not deserve less privacy and control over their confidential information simply because two professionals decided to form a multi-disciplinary team, even if the purpose of that team is to help the survivor. Indeed, many victims may refuse to seek services if they believe there is a chance that their confidential information will be released without their knowledge or consent.

Domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking service providers are currently able to participate in multi-disciplinary teams that benefit their clients without jeopardizing their clients’ confidentiality and privilege rights. If a survivor wants to be connected to services offered by another multi-disciplinary team member, the client can simply consent to disclosing their information to that team member. We see no demonstrated need to undermine current practices of obtaining informed consent from survivors. (Emphasis added.)

If the purported goal of these programs is to assist the victims of these crimes, the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure that any responses or “solutions” are driven by the victims themselves, rather than being pushed forward without the victims’ knowledge and possibly against their wishes.

4. Additional elements

The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV) has suggested various revisions to the list of potential MDT members that seem appropriate. First, CPEDV points out that including domestic violence shelter service staff is redundant and possibly confusing as such staff would be included under the definition of domestic violence counselors. In addition, CPEDV urged the inclusion of a cross reference for the definition of human trafficking caseworkers to Section 1038.2. These changes increase the clarity of the bill.

In addition, as pointed out by the California Public Defenders Association and noted in the Senate Public Safety Committee Analysis of this bill, the restrictions that make information shared in MDTs inadmissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding are problematic given the obligations created pursuant to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 88. Given that MDTs can include law enforcement and prosecutors, exculpatory information may be revealed, and although confidentiality concerns are present, there are competing constitutional obligations regarding the turning over of this information. Therefore, the bill must provide for the disclosure of such information where required by law.

5. Proposed amendments

In response to the concerns and suggestions detailed above, the author has agreed to the following amendment version of the bill:

SECTION 1. The heading of Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) of Part 4 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers and Multidisciplinary Teams

SEC. 2. The heading of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Title 5.3 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:

CHAPTER 1. Family Justice Centers

SEC. 3. Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 13752) is added to Title 5.3 of Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:

CHAPTER 2. Multidisciplinary Teams

13752. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.

(b) A domestic violence multidisciplinary team may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.

(2) Medical personnel.

(3) Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel.

(4) District attorneys and city attorneys.

(5) Victim-witness program personnel.

(6) Sexual assault counselors, as defined in Section 1035.2 of the Evidence Code.

(7) Domestic violence counselors, as defined in Section 1037.1 of the Evidence Code.

(8) Social service agency staff members.

(9) Child welfare agency social workers.

(10) County health department staff.

(11) City or County welfare and public assistance workers.

(12) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.

(13) Civil legal service providers.

(14) Human trafficking caseworkers, as defined in Section 1038.2 of the Evidence Code.

(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected domestic violence, members of a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of domestic violence may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of domestic violence that may also be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of domestic violence. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and, testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding unless required by law.

(2) Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of the domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information.

(3) Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section shall not be made to anyone other than members of the domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team, and those qualified to receive information as set forth in subdivision (d).

(d) The domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team may designate persons qualified pursuant to subdivision (c) to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member pursuant to this subdivision may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (g).

(e) The sharing of information permitted under subdivision (c) shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the domestic violence multidisciplinary team to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the domestic violence multidisciplinary team.

Members of the team that have confidential information obtained from an individual shall not disclose that information to and with one another unless they have obtained that individual’s informed, written, reasonably time limited consent to the disclosure, in accordance with all applicable state and federal confidentiality laws, or it is otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court order. Before such consent is obtained, a member of the team is required to inform the indiviudal that information shared may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without their consent if required by law.

A disclosure of information consented to by an individual shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, including those contained in Sections 2263, 2918, 4982, and 6068 of the Business and Professions Code, and Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code.

(f) Every member of the domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team who receives information or records regarding children and families in their capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.

(g) This section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.

(h) Information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a domestic violence investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.

13753. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a city, county, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization may establish a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of human trafficking cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to human trafficking.

(b) A human trafficking multidisciplinary team may include, but need not be limited to, any of the following:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.

(2) Medical personnel.

(3) Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel.

(4) District attorneys and city attorneys.

(5) Victim-witness program personnel.

(6) Sexual assault counselors, as defined in Section 1035.2 of the Evidence Code.

(7) Domestic violence counselors, as defined in Section 1037.1 of the Evidence Code.

(8) Social service agency staff members.

(9) Child welfare agency social workers.

(10) County health department staff.

(11) City or County welfare and public assistance workers.

(12) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.

(13) Civil legal service providers.

(14) Human trafficking caseworkers, as defined in Section 1038.2 of the Evidence Code.

(c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected human trafficking, members of a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team engaged in the prevention, identification, and treatment of human trafficking may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of human trafficking that may also be designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of human trafficking. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and, testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding, unless required by law.

(2) Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of the human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information.

(3) Disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section shall not be made to anyone other than members of the human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team, and those qualified to receive information as set forth in subdivision (d).

(d) The human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team may designate persons qualified pursuant to subdivision (c) to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member pursuant to this subdivision may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (g).

(e) The sharing of information permitted under subdivision (c) shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the human trafficking multidisciplinary team to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the human trafficking multidisciplinary team.

Members of the team that have confidential information obtained from an individual shall not disclose that information to and with one another unless they have obtained that individual’s informed, written, reasonably time limited consent to the disclosure, in accordance with all applicable state and federal confidentiality laws, or it is otherwise required by other state or federal law or by court order. Before such consent is obtained, a member of the team is required to inform the individual that information shared may be shared with law enforcement professionals or other entities without their consent if required by law.

A disclosure of information consented to by an individual shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or confidentiality provision, including those contained in Sections 2263, 2918, 4982, and 6068 of the Business and Professions Code, and Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code.

(f) Every member of the human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team who receives information or records regarding children and families in their capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights.

(g) This section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law.

(h) Information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a human trafficking investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections, except where disclosure is required by law. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members.

Support: Diana Becton, Contra Costa County District Attorney

Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union; California Partnership to End Domestic Violence

HISTORY

Source: Contra Costa Family Justice Center

Related Pending Legislation: None Known

Prior Legislation:

AB 704 (Grayson, 2017) would have provided substantially similar MDTs for domestic violence and human trafficking as this bill would. This bill died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 1623 (Atkins, Ch. 85, Stats. 2014) See Background.

Prior Vote:

Senate Public Safety Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Assembly Floor (Ayes 77, Noes 0)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)

Assembly Veterans Affairs Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)

**************

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 998 Hearing Date: June 19, 2018

Subject: Multidisciplinary Teams: Human Trafficking and Domestic Violence

HISTORY

Source: Contra Costa Family Justice Center

Prior Legislation: AB 704 (Grayson), 2015, died in Senate Public Safety

Support: County Health Executives Association of California; Office of the District Attorney Contra Costa County

Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union of California; California Public Defenders Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to authorize municipalities or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team and a human trafficking multidisciplinary personnel team.

Existing law defines “domestic violence” as abuse perpetrated against any of the following persons:

1. A spouse or former spouse;
2. A cohabitant or former cohabitant;
3. A person whom the respondent is having or has a dating or engagement relationship;
4. A person whom the respondent has had a child;
5. A child of a party or child who is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act; or
6. Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 243.)

Existing law makes a person who deprives or violates the personal liberty of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than five hundred thousand dollars. (Pen. Code,§ 236.1.)

Existing law authorizes city, city and county, or community-based nonprofit organization to establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (a).)

Existing law defines family justice centers as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, or human trafficking from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (c).)

Existing law declares that nothing in this section is intended to abrogate existing laws regarding privacy or information sharing. (Pen. Code, § 13750, subd. (e).)

Existing law states that members of a multidisciplinary personnel team engaged in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse or neglect may disclose and exchange information and writings to and with one another relating to any incidents of child abuse that may also be a part of a juvenile court record or otherwise designated as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of child abuse, or the provision of child welfare services. All discussions relative to the disclosure or exchange of any such information or writings during team meetings are confidential unless disclosure is required by law. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, testimony concerning any such discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 830.)

Existing law states that during a 30-day period, or longer if documented good cause exists, following a report of suspected child abuse or neglect, members of a child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team may disclose to and exchange with one another information and writings that relate to any incident of child abuse that may also be designed as confidential under state law if the member of the team having that information or writing reasonable believes it Is general relevant to the prevention, identification, or treatment of child abuse. Any discussion relative to the disclosure or exchange of the information or writings during a team meeting is confidential and testimony concerning that discussion is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(1).)

Existing law requires that disclosure and exchange of information pursuant to this section may occur telephonically and electronically if there is adequate verification of the identity of child abuse multidisciplinary personnel who are involved in that disclosure or exchange of information. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing law allows disclosure and exchange of information shall not be made to anyone other than members of the child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team, and those qualified to receive information, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (c)(3).)

Existing law states that the child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team may designate persons qualified to be a member of the team for a particular case. A person designated as a team member may receive and disclose relevant information and records, subject to the confidentiality provisions of subdivision (f). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (d).)

Existing law states that the sharing of information shall be governed by protocols developed in each county describing how and what information may be shared by the child abuse multidisciplinary team to ensure that confidential information gathered by the team is not disclosed in violation of state or federal law. A copy of the protocols shall be distributed to each participating agency and to persons in those agencies who participate in the child abuse multidisciplinary team. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (e).)

Existing law states every member of the child abuse multidisciplinary personnel team who receives information or records regarding children and families in his or her capacity as a member of the team shall be under the same privacy and confidentiality obligations and subject to the same confidentiality penalties as the person disclosing or providing the information or records. The information or records obtained shall be maintained in a manner that ensures the maximum protection of privacy and confidentiality rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (f).)

Existing law requires that this section shall not be construed to restrict guarantees of confidentiality provided under state or federal law. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (g).)

Existing law states information and records communicated or provided to the team members by all providers and agencies, as well as information and records created in the course of a child abuse or neglect investigation, shall be deemed private and confidential and shall be protected from discovery and disclosure by all applicable statutory and common law protections. Existing civil and criminal penalties shall apply to the inappropriate disclosure of information held by the team members. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 18961.7, subd. (h).)

This bill establishes a domestic violence multidisciplinary personnel team consisting of two or more persons who are trained in the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence cases and who are qualified to provide a broad range of services related to domestic violence.

This bill states that that members of the team may disclose and exchange information and records to and with one another relating to incidents of domestic violence that may be confidential if the member of the team having that information or records reasonably believes it is generally relevant to the prevention, identification, management, or treatment of domestic violence or the provision of domestic violence services and support.

This bill requires that all discussions relating to the disclosure or exchange of that information or records during team meetings are confidential unless disclosure is required by law.

This bill states that, notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning those discussions is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding.

This bill states that a domestic violence multidisciplinary team may include, but not be limited to, any of the following:

1. Law enforcement personnel;
2. Medical personnel;
3. Psychiatrists, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, or other trained counseling personnel;
4. District attorneys and city attorneys;
5. Victim-witness program personnel;
6. Domestic violence shelter service staff;
7. Sexual assault counselors;
8. Domestic violence counselors;
9. Social service agency staff members;
10. Child welfare agency social workers;
11. County health department staff;
12. City or County welfare and public assistance workers;
13. Nonprofit agency counseling professionals;
14. Civil legal service providers; or
15. Human trafficking caseworkers.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

The author states:

Existing law allows Family Justice Center (FJC) personnel to share confidential information amongst themselves in order to implement collaborative remedies for individuals and families struggling with interpersonal violence. Unfortunately, not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. Without an FJC there is no ability for advocates to share information about human trafficking victims or domestic violence victims. In addition, FJC-based MDTs have come across situations where they are unable to get advanced, informed, written, and time-limited consent but must address complex or high risk situations. In those cases the MDT must try to de-identify the case information, which restricts discussion and collaboration and ultimately frustrates their ability to provide services and support.

2. Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking

In the 1970s and 1980s, an abundance of domestic violence disputes were filed and spurred a growing awareness in the prevalence and severity of the intimate partner violence. The awareness was coupled with increased criticism of the police and how they were not adequately responding to victims of domestic violence.^[1] The result of insufficient and uncompleted police action may be fatal. Based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics from 1998 to 2002, 73% of domestic violence victims were female. Three-fourths of the persons who committed family violence were male.

Human trafficking involves compelling or coercing a person or group to provide labor or services, or engage in sex acts. The coercion can be subtle or overt, physical or psychological, and may involve use of violence, threats, manipulation, or debt bondage.^[2] California is one of the largest sites for human trafficking in the United States. In 2016, there were 1,331 cases of trafficking. Of these cases, 1,051 were sex trafficking cases, 147 were labor trafficking cases, 46 were both labor and sex trafficking, and 86 cases were unspecified.^[3]

3. Family Justice Center

Family Justice Centers (FJCs) provides collaborated approaches for victims of their families to report a crime, provide a complete statement, receive assistance to obtain temporary restraining orders, find safe housing, meet with their prosecutors, and more.^[4] Currently, there are 21 counties in California that have FJCs taking this multidisciplinary and collaborative approach.

The author statement noted that not every county has an FJC or the resources to establish one: there are 58 counties and only 21 FJCs. If counties do not have the resources to establish a FJC, how will new MDTs be supported?

4. Brady Disclosure

In Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court held that prosecutors must fully disclose to the accused all exculpatory evidence in their possession.^[5] Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have elaborated those Brady obligations to include the duty to disclose impeachment evidence, favorable evidence in the absence of a request by the accused, and evidence in the possession of persons or organizations.

This bill states that, notwithstanding any other law, testimony concerning those discussions is not admissible in any criminal, civil, or juvenile court proceeding. The opposition concern is whether or not testimony will be inadmissible in spite of Brady and subsequent case law requiring that the prosecution disclose evidence to the defendant.

5. Confidentiality

Because domestic violence and human trafficking affects minors and adults, privacy and confidentiality must be maintained. The MDT targeting child abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment projects in Welfare and Institutions Code 18961.7, subdivisions (c) through (h) includes specified privacy, disclosure, and information exchange stipulations. While this bill is modeled after existing MDTs, AB 998 contains no express provisions related to maintenance of privacy or confidentiality.

6. Argument in Support

AB 998 would establish a similar statutory authority for county departments and other service providers to share information related to domestic violence or human trafficking cases and would help facilitate the identification, assessment, and linkage of victims of domestic violence or human trafficking to the most appropriate care and supportive service. The ability to share this data will allow agencies to better coordinate services for our communities’ most vulnerable populations in a more efficient and effective manner.

7. Argument in Opposition

According to the California Public Defenders Association:

Subsection (b)(3) would function to prevent the impeachment at trial of a victim who had recanted thus violating the United States Constitution’s explicit guarantee of the right to cross-examine and confront one’s accuser. If a victim told his medical doctor or therapist that he had lied about being beaten by his spouse and that information was discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting, the district attorney would have a clear obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose the information to the defense. However, subsection (b)(3) which bars testimony would violate the Constitutional right to cross-examine since the defense lawyer would neither be able to question the victim about his assertion that he lied about the incident, nor call the team member as a witness to impeach the victim.

-- END –

1. Meg Townsend, “Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence Calls for Service,” n.d., 109. ↑

2. “What Is Human Trafficking?,” State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General, January 6, 2012, https://oag.ca.gov/human-trafficking/what-is. ↑

3. “What Is Human Trafficking?” ↑

4. “Sacramento DA :: Family Justice Center,” accessed June 12, 2018, http://www.sacda.org/helpingvictims/family-justice-center/. ↑

5. Laural L Hooper, Jennifer E Marsh, and Brian Yeh, “Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts’ Rules, Orders, and Policies,” n.d., 30. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 998

Author:(Grayson)

As Amended Ver:March 28, 2017

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Requires transparency and modernization of the admissions and waiting list policies for the CalVet Veterans Homes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CalVet to create an admissions page on its Internet Web site for the purpose of increasing transparency in the process for admission to the homes.
2. States that the admissions page must incorporate all of the following:
   1. An online application option for veterans seeking admission to a home.
   2. A user-friendly wait list showing an applicant's current spot on a home's wait list relative to other applicants, updated whenever there is a change, and with a mechanism that preserves applicant privacy.
   3. Contact information for an applicant to ask for assistance regarding the application process.
   4. Information on the number of veterans currently on the wait list for each level of care at each home.

FISCAL EFFECT: According the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Onetime costs to CalVet of $348,000 General Fund (GF) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18. This includes one Staff Information Systems Analyst position and consulting costs to develop the system.
2. Ongoing annual costs to CalVet of $122,000 (GF) beginning in FY 2018-19 to staff and maintain the system.

COMMENTS: According to the Author:

The state of California runs eight Veterans Homes with 3,000 beds that house approximately 2,700 veterans. The homes provide residential and long-term care for eligible veterans who are aged or disabled, and discharged honorably.

Current law specifies that veterans who are Medal of Honor recipients, former prisoners of war, and who served during wartime are prioritized for admission to the homes. Other factors, such as social and economic hardship, age, and disability, may be considered.

The current process for application to one of the homes begins with a veteran filling out a physical application, undergoing an extensive medical review, and a determination by a home of which level of care is most suitable for the applicant. There are five levels of care, in increasing degrees of specialized attention that a veteran would need depending on his/her health or personal conditions: domiciliary (independent) living, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (Assisted Living), Intermediate Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, and Memory Care.

There is currently no mechanism for admission processes to be carried out online, so the whole system relies on phone calls and letters to notify veterans of their current application status. Every 6 months, a home calls or mails a letter to notify the applicant if he/she is still on the wait list, and ask whether the veteran wants to stay on. An applicant can also call to request the status.

There is great demand for spots in the veterans' homes, especially at the highest levels of care: skilled nursing (283 veterans in the entire homes system) and memory care (257 veterans) as of October 2016. At the Yountville home alone, there are 108 veterans on the skilled nursing bed wait list. As of January 2017, there were 750 wait list applicants overall.

With such great demand, some veterans may wait months or even years to be admitted. With no accountable way to keep track of one's spot on a waitlist, short and long-term planning for veterans becomes difficult, especially for those in already vulnerable living or financial situations and who need to make other arrangements for housing and care. Since the only means of communication are verbal and mail, there is no way to determine if a veteran was unintentionally skipped over, removed, or moving slowly on a waitlist.

The Little Hoover Commission makes a recommendation in its March 2017 report that CalVet should create a secure online site to make it easier for veterans to track all steps of the application process and contact a person when questions arise.

The foregoing statement of the situation by the author is accurate. In addition, the current system does not contemplate continuum of care or a systemic approach to the Homes. What happens if a member of the home needs to transition to a higher level of care? If the higher level of care is available at the home where the member is, who gets priority, the people on the waiting list or the member of the home? What happens if the member needs a higher level of care but it is not available at that home, does the member have priority over those on the wait list for the level of care at other homes? What happens if a member needs higher a level of care but there are no beds available anywhere in the system at that higher level?

There are various other permutations, but to summarize, the rules are largely opaque, the process is opaque, and it is extremely challenging for veterans and their families in or out of the Homes to make informed care decisions due to the lack of information readily available to them. Moreover, because the admissions and wait list processes are opaque, antiquated, lacking in regulatory structure, and decentralized, they are potentially subject to being manipulated through favoritism or worse.

The content of this bill has also been discussed in Budget Sub-Committee 4 with regard to CalVet's budget trailer bill.

Analysis Prepared by: John Spangler / V.A. / (916) 319-3550 FN: 0000801

Date of Hearing: May 3, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 998

Author:(Grayson) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2017

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY: This bill requires the Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to create an admissions page for its veterans homes on its Internet Web site. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CalVet, by January 1, 2019, to create an admissions page on its Internet Web site, for the purpose of increasing transparency in the process for admission to the homes.
2. Requires the admissions page to include all of the following:
3. An online application option for veterans seeking admission to a home.
4. A user-friendly wait list that shows an applicant’s current spot on a home’s wait list relative to other applicants, that is updated whenever there is a change, and that contains a mechanism that preserves applicant privacy.
5. Contact information for an applicant to ask for assistance regarding the application process.
6. Information on the number of veterans currently on the wait list for each level of care at each home.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Onetime costs to CalVet of $348,000 (GF) in FY 2017-18. This includes one Staff Information Systems Analyst position and consulting costs to develop the system.
2. Ongoing annual costs to CalVet of $122,000 (GF) beginning in FY 2018-19 to staff and maintain the system.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author, this bill would "increase transparency and efficiency for veterans in the application process for admission to one of the eight state-run Veterans Homes. Currently, applications can only be filed physically, and homes rely on sporadic phone calls and letters to notify veterans of their current application status. Hundreds of veterans stay on waiting lists, sometimes for months or years, without readily available or verified information. Incorporating an online page into the applications process would allow a veteran to clearly see his or her position on the waitlist, reduce uncertainty, and be able to better plan and decide if he or she needs to make alternative living arrangements. It would also promote accountability in an often confusing and lengthy process by allowing positions to be easily monitored on a standard-format waitlist as they change."
2. Background. California runs eight Veterans Homes with 3,000 beds that house approximately 2,700 veterans. The homes provide residential and long-term care for eligible veterans who are aged or disabled, and who were discharged honorably. There are five levels of care, in increasing degrees of specialized attention: domiciliary (independent) living, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (Assisted Living), Intermediate Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, and Memory Care.

Existing law specifies that veterans who are Medal of Honor recipients, former prisoners of war, and who served during wartime are prioritized for admission to the homes. Other factors, such as social and economic hardship, age, and disability, may be considered.

The current application process to a home includes a paper application, an extensive medical review, and a determination by a home of which level of care is most suitable for the applicant. There is currently no mechanism for the admission process to be carried out online. Instead, the system relies entirely on phone calls and letters to notify veterans of their current application status. Every six months, a home will call or mail a letter to notify the applicant if he or she is still on the wait list, and to ask whether the veteran wants to stay on the list. An applicant can also call to request their status. As of January 2017, there were more than 750 wait list applicants across all homes, with the longest wait lists for skilled nursing and memory care.

1. Little Hoover Commission Report. In March of 2017, the Little Hoover Commission (Commission) issued a report entitled, "A New Approach to California’s Veterans Homes" (Report 237, March 2017). The report contained several recommendations including that CalVet create a secure online site to make it easier for veterans to track all steps of the application process and provide a contact a person when questions arise.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 4, 2017

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS

Jacqui Irwin, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 998 (

Author:Grayson) – As Amended Ver:March 28, 2017

SUBJECT: Veterans homes: Internet Web site

SUMMARY: Requires transparency and modernization of the admissions and waiting list policies for the CalVet Veterans Homes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires CalVet to create an admissions page on its Internet Web site for the purpose of increasing transparency in the process for admission to the homes.
2. States that the admissions page must incorporate all of the following:
   1. An online application option for veterans seeking admission to a home.
   2. A user-friendly wait list showing an applicant’s current spot on a home’s wait list relative to other applicants, updated whenever there is a change, and with a mechanism that preserves applicant privacy.
   3. Contact information for an applicant to ask for assistance regarding the application process.
   4. Information on the number of veterans currently on the wait list for each level of care at each home.

EXISTING LAW: Existing laws and regulations exist concerning eligibility for admission to the Home, for example MVC section states the general rule:

Except as provided in Section 1012.4, the home is for aged and disabled persons who served in the Armed Forces of the United States of America who were discharged or released from active duty under honorable conditions from service, who are eligible for hospitalization or domiciliary care in a veterans’ facility in accordance with the rules and regulations of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, and who are bona fide residents of this state at the time of application; and for the spouses of these persons…

California Code of Regulations, (CCR) Title 12, Division 2, Ch 4, section 500, et seq., pertain to the Home and include regulations concerning priorities for admission and waiting lists. Section 502.2 states in part:

… When waiting lists are in effect the Veterans Home shall select veterans for admission chronologically based on the date the application was received, by the level of care and category required. … Priority for admission to the Veterans Home as a couple shall be based on the date that the couple's application is received …the Veterans Home shall determine an applicant's eligibility … and by applying the definitions in Section 503 the veteran's level of care shall be determined.

…The Veterans Home shall advise applicants of their position on the waiting list and the approximate waiting time before scheduled admission within five working days after their application has been approved. The Veterans Home shall provide updates on approximate waiting time to the veteran upon receipt of a written or verbal request from the veteran.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown at this time:

COMMENTS: According to the Author:

The state of California runs eight Veterans Homes with 3,000 beds that house approximately 2,700 veterans. The homes provide residential and long-term care for eligible veterans who are aged or disabled, and discharged honorably.

Current law specifies that veterans who are Medal of Honor recipients, former prisoners of war, and who served during wartime are prioritized for admission to the homes. Other factors, such as social and economic hardship, age, and disability, may be considered.

The current process for application to one of the homes begins with a veteran filling out a physical application, undergoing an extensive medical review, and a determination by a home of which level of care is most suitable for the applicant. There are five levels of care, in increasing degrees of specialized attention that a veteran would need depending on his/her health or personal conditions: domiciliary (independent) living, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (Assisted Living), Intermediate Care, Skilled Nursing Facility, and Memory Care.

There is currently no mechanism for admission processes to be carried out online, so the whole system relies on phone calls and letters to notify veterans of their current application status. Every 6 months, a home calls or mails a letter to notify the applicant if he/she is still on the wait list, and ask whether the veteran wants to stay on. An applicant can also call to request the status.

There is great demand for spots in the veterans’ homes, especially at the highest levels of care: skilled nursing (283 veterans in the entire homes system) and memory care (257 veterans) as of October 2016. At the Yountville home alone, there are 108 veterans on the skilled nursing bed wait list. As of January 2017, there were 750 wait list applicants overall.

With such great demand, some veterans may wait months or even years to be admitted. With no accountable way to keep track of one’s spot on a waitlist, short and long-term planning for veterans becomes difficult, especially for those in already vulnerable living or financial situations and who need to make other arrangements for housing and care. Since the only means of communication are verbal and mail, there is no way to determine if a veteran was unintentionally skipped over, removed, or moving slowly on a waitlist.

The Little Hoover Commission makes a recommendation in its March 2017 report that CalVet should create a secure online site to make it easier for veterans to track all steps of the application process and contact a person when questions arise.

The foregoing statement of the situation by the author is accurate. In addition, the current system does not contemplate continuum of care or a systemic approach to the Homes. What happens if a member of the home needs to transition to a higher level of care? If the higher level of care is available at the home where the member is, who gets priority, the people on the waiting list or the member of the home? What happens if the member needs a higher level of care but it is not available at that home, does the member have priority over those on the wait list for the level of care at other homes? What happens if a member needs higher a level of care but there are no beds available anywhere in the system at that higher level?

There are various other permutations, but to summarize, the rules are largely opaque, the process is opaque, and it is extremely challenging for veterans and their families in or out of the Homes to make informed care decisions due to the lack of information readily available to them. Moreover, because the admissions and wait list processes are opaque, antiquated, lacking in regulatory structure, and decentralized, they are potentially subject to being manipulated through favoritism or worse.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on File.

Opposition

None on File.

Analysis Prepared by: John Spangler / V.A. / (916) 319-3550