Existing law requires the juvenile court to appoint counsel for a child or nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings if they are not represented by counsel, unless the court determines that there would be no benefit from the appointment of counsel. Existing law authorizes counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the State Bar, who satisfies certain conditions. Existing law specifies that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or nonminor dependent. Under existing law, counsel in general is charged with representation of the childs best interests. Existing law requires, when counsel is appointed for a nonminor dependent, counsel to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

This bill would remove the requirement that a primary responsibility of appointed counsel is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of a nonminor dependent. The bill would also remove the above-described exception to representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent when those wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

Existing law requires the juvenile court to appoint counsel for a child or nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings if they are not represented by counsel, unless the court determines that there would be no benefit from the appointment of counsel. Existing law authorizes counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the State Bar, who satisfies certain conditions. Existing law specifies that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or nonminor dependent. Under existing law, counsel in general is charged with representation of the childs best interests. Existing law requires, when counsel is appointed for a nonminor dependent, counsel to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

This bill would remove the requirement that a primary responsibility of appointed counsel is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of a nonminor dependent. The bill would also remove the above-described exception to representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent when those wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

Existing law requires the juvenile court to appoint counsel for a child or nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings if they are not represented by counsel, unless the court determines that there would be no benefit from the appointment of counsel. Existing law authorizes counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the State Bar, who satisfies certain conditions. Existing law authorizes the court to fix the compensation for the services of appointed counsel. Existing law specifies that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or nonminor dependent. Under existing law, counsel in general is charged with representation of the childs best interests. Existing law requires, when counsel is appointed for a nonminor dependent, counsel to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

This bill would remove the requirement that a primary responsibility of appointed counsel is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of a nonminor dependent. The bill would also remove the above-described exception to representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent when those wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

Existing law requires the juvenile court to appoint counsel for a child or nonminor dependent in dependency proceedings if they are not represented by counsel, unless the court determines that there would be no benefit from the appointment of counsel. Existing law authorizes counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the State Bar, who satisfies certain conditions. Existing law authorizes the court to fix the compensation for the services of appointed counsel. Under existing law, counsel in general is charged with representation of the childs best interests. Existing law requires, when counsel is appointed for a nonminor dependent, counsel to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

This bill would remove the above-described exception to representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent when those wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 373

Author: Blanca Rubio (D)

Amended: 3/11/25 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 10-1, 6/17/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Niello

NO VOTE RECORDED: Ashby, Valladares

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-1, 7/7/25

AYES: Arreguín, Becker, Durazo, Limón

NOES: Ochoa Bogh

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/7/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Dependency proceedings: counsel

SOURCE: California Youth Connection

Children’s Law Center

DIGEST:

This bill requires counsel appointed to represent a nonminor dependent (NMD) in a dependency proceeding to represent the wishes of the NMD, without exception.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction over minors who are suffering or at substantial risk of suffering harm or abuse and may adjudge the minor to be a dependent of the court. (Welfare and Institutions Code (Welf. & Inst. Code), § 300.)
2. Provides that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is the maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus is on the preservation of the family, as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2.)
3. Provides that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over:
   1. A child who is subject to abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)
   2. A child, when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency jurisdiction rendering the child a ward. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 601, 602.)
   3. Any NMD; an NMD under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court retains their legal decision-making authority as an adult, except as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 303.)
4. Defines “NMD” as a current foster youth or a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the court who: is between 18 and 21 years old; turned 18 years old while under an order of foster care placement; is in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, or Indian Tribe; and is participating in a transitional independent living plan, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11400(v).)
5. Requires the court to appoint counsel for a minor or NMD in a dependency proceeding if they are not already represented by counsel, unless the court specifically finds that the minor or NMD would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317(c)(1).)
6. Provides that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a minor or NMD shall be to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the minor or NMD. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.(c)(2).)
7. Provides that court-appointed counsel for a child or NMD is charged with the following:
   1. For a minor, court-appointed counsel is charged in general with the representation of the minor’s interests.
   2. For an NMD, court-appointed counsel is charged with representing the wishes of the NMD except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 317(e)(1).)
8. Provides that, if a court finds that an NMD is not competent to direct counsel, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the NMD. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.(e)(1).)

This bill:

1. Removes the provision allowing court-appointed counsel for an NMD to disregard the NMD’s wishes if the counsel determines that the wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the NMD.
2. Makes nonsubstantive technical and conforming changes.

Comments

Current law permits an NMD to remain in extended foster care until they reach 21 years of age. As a legal adult, an NMD generally retains the legal authority to make their own decisions, except where specified. One such exception arises with respect to the NMD’s court-appointed counsel, which must be provided unless the court specifically finds that counsel would not benefit the NMD. While attorneys are generally required to represent their client’s wishes, an NMD’s attorney is required to represent the NMD’s wishes unless the attorney determines that advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD.

This bill eliminates the provisions permitting an NMD’s counsel to override their client’s wishes on the basis of the NMD’s protection or safety, thereby bringing representation of an NMD in line with the representation of all other competent clients. The NMD’s social worker and the attorney representing the county in the NMD’s case will still be able to argue against the NMD’s wishes if they believe the NMD’s protection or safety are implicated, giving the court the ability to decide the issue. The intent of this bill is to prevent NMDs’ attorneys from substituting their judgment for the NMD’s own preferences regarding their lives.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 7/8/25)

California Youth Connection (Source)

Children’s Law Center of California (Source)

All of Us or None Orange County

California Alliance of Caregivers

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

Children Now

Children’s Legal Services

Dependency Advocacy Services

Dependency Legal Services

East Bay Children’s Law Offices

Families Inspiring Reentry & Reunification for Everyone

FLEXCOM

John Burton Advocates for Youth

National Association of Social Workers – California Chapter

Public Counsel

Starting Over Strong

Starting Over, Inc.

OPPOSITION: (Verified 7/8/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Children’s Law Center of California:

Currently, existing law requires appointed counsel to represent the best interests of children and nonminor dependents in dependency proceedings. However, this standard is often inappropriately applied to nonminor dependents, who, as legal adults, deserve the right to direct their own representation. The current framework can result in legal counsel overriding the wishes of nonminor dependents (legal adults) in favor of what an attorney perceives to be in their best interest, effectively limiting the nonminor dependents’ decision-making power.

AB 373 directly addresses this issue by:

• Clarifying the role of counsel by requiring that appointed attorneys for nonminor dependents advocate for their expressed wishes rather than substituting their judgment.
• Upholding nonminor autonomy by affirming their right to actively participate in legal decisions regarding housing, education, and employment.
• Distinguishing minors from nonminor dependents by ensuring counsel can continue to advocate for a minor’s best interests while nonminor dependents receive legal representation aligned with their stated interests.

CLC urges the Committee to support AB 373 as it strengthens the rights of nonminor dependents and ensures that counsel is given the mandate to appropriately advocate for them, recognizing their autonomy and needs. This bill represents a crucial step forward in making California’s juvenile dependency system more responsive, just, and respectful of nonminor dependents' voices.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-0, 4/7/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bauer-Kahan, Castillo, Dixon, Ellis, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Lackey, Lee, Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis

Prepared by: Allison Whitt Meredith / JUD. / (916) 651-4113

7/9/25 16:03:24

**** END ****

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: AB 373 (Author:Blanca Rubio)

Version: March 11, 2025

Hearing Date: June 17, 2025

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Dependency proceedings: counsel

DIGEST

This bill requires counsel appointed to represent a nonminor dependent (NMD) in a dependency proceeding to represent the wishes of the NMD, without exception.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current law permits an NMD to remain in extended foster care until they reach 21 years of age. As a legal adult, an NMD generally retains the legal authority to make their own decisions, except where specified. One such exception arises with respect to the NMD’s court-appointed counsel, which must be provided unless the court specifically finds that counsel would not benefit the NMD. While attorneys are generally required to represent their client’s wishes, an NMD’s attorney is required to represent the NMD’s wishes unless the attorney determines that advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD.

This bill eliminates the provisions permitting an NMD’s counsel to override their client’s wishes on the basis of the NMD’s protection or safety, thereby bringing representation of an NMD in line with the representation of all other competent clients. The NMD’s social worker and the attorney representing the county in the NMD’s case will still be able to argue against the NMD’s wishes if they believe the NMD’s protection or safety are implicated, giving the court the ability to decide the issue. The intent of the bill is to prevent NMDs’ attorneys from substituting their judgment for the NMD’s own preferences regarding their lives.

This bill is sponsored by California Youth Connection and the Children’s Law Center and is supported by Children Now and the Family Law Section Executive Committee of the California Lawyers Association (FLEXCOM). The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. If the Committee passes this bill, it will then be heard by the Senate Human Services Committee.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction over minors who are suffering or at substantial risk of suffering harm or abuse and may adjudge the minor to be a dependent of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)
2. Provides that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is the maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus is on the preservation of the family, as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.2.)
3. Provides that the juvenile court has jurisdiction over:
   1. A child who is subject to abuse or neglect. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300.)
   2. A child, when that child has committed acts that trigger delinquency jurisdiction rendering the child a ward. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 601, 602.)
   3. Any NMD; an NMD under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court retains their legal decision-making authority as an adult, except as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 303.)
4. Defines “NMD” as a current foster youth or a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the court who: is between 18 and 21 years old; turned 18 years old while under an order of foster care placement; is in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, or Indian Tribe; and is participating in a transitional independent living plan, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11400(v).)
5. Requires the court to appoint counsel for a minor or NMD in a dependency proceeding if they are not already represented by counsel, unless the court specifically finds that the minor or NMD would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317(c)(1).)
6. Provides that a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a minor or NMD shall be to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the minor or NMD. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.(c)(2).)
7. Provides that court-appointed counsel for a child or NMD is charged with the following:
   1. For a minor, court-appointed counsel is charged in general with the representation of the minor’s interests.
   2. For an NMD, court-appointed counsel is charged with representing the wishes of the NMD except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 317(e)(1).)
8. Provides that, if a court finds that an NMD is not competent to direct counsel, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the NMD. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317.(e)(1).)

This bill:

1. Removes the provision allowing court-appointed counsel for an NMD to disregard the NMD’s wishes if the counsel determines that the wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the NMD.
2. Makes nonsubstantive technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Assembly Bill 373 seeks to amend California Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) Section 317(e) to clarify that when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent, the counsel’s primary responsibility is to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent, rather than acting solely as an advocate for their best interests.

2. Overview of the dependency system

The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children.^[1] Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 sets forth the circumstances that can bring a child within the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court. “ ‘Although the harm or risk of harm to the child [for jurisdictional purposes] must generally be the result of an act, omission or inability of one of the parents or guardians, the central focus of dependency jurisdiction is clearly on the child rather than the parent.’ ”^[2]

When a child is found to be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, the child is deemed a dependent of that court and the court may begin proceedings to remove the child from the custody of their parent(s); if, after a series of hearings, a parent is found to be unfit, the court can terminate the parent’s parental rights.^[3] The overarching inquiry is whether the child would suffer, or is likely to suffer, harm if they remain with their parent.

3. Overview of extended foster care and NMDs

In October 2008, the federal government enacted the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act,^[4] which, among other things, offered additional funding to states that opted to extend foster care services to youths between 18 and 21 years of age. Two years later, the Legislature enacted the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (the Act),^[5] which authorized the juvenile courts to exercise jurisdiction over, and extend foster care benefits to, persons between 18 to 21 years of age who are eligible for specified public assistance and for whom one or more of the following conditions exist:

• The nonminor is working toward their high school education or an equivalent credential;
• The nonminor is enrolled in a postsecondary institution or vocational education program;
• The nonminor is participating in a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to employment;
• The nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours per month; and/or,
• The nonminor is incapable of doing any of the activities described above, due to a medical condition, and that incapability is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the nonminor.^[6]

In the years after the Act’s passage, the Legislature passed several additional measures to refine, and close gaps in, the laws governing foster care for youths between 18 and 21 years of age.^[7] These dependents are known as “nonminor dependents,” or NMDs,^[8] and the system of supports provided to them is known as “extended foster care.” As of January 1, 2025, there were 38,894 minors and NMDs in foster care in California, 6,804 of whom were NMDs.^[9]

4. The right to counsel in dependency proceedings

If a minor or an NMD does not have counsel in a dependency proceeding, the court must appoint counsel for them.^[10] A primary responsibility of court-appointed counsel is “to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or the [NMD].”^[11] Court-appointed counsel for a child is tasked with generally representing the child’s interests, without specifying when and how counsel may make arguments contrary to the child’s wishes.^[12] Court-appointed counsel for an NMD, however, “is charged with representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the [NMD].”^[13] This provision permitting an NMD’s counsel to override the NMD’s wishes applies to NMDs who are legally capable of making their own decisions—if the court determines that an NMD is not competent to direct counsel, the court is required to appoint a guardian ad litem for the NMD.^[14] As a practical matter, this provision appears to give NMD’s counsel substantial leeway in declining to represent the NMD’s wishes, because the terms “protection” and “safety” are both broad and vague.

Under the California Rules of Professional Conduct, an attorney “shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation” unless the client seeks advice on the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act.^[15] The provision permitting an NMD’s attorney to contradict their client’s wishes, therefore, represents a significant departure from the standard attorney-client relationship, as explained by FLEXCOM:

The exception in the existing statute is contrary to the nature of the relationship attorneys necessarily have with an adult client. Namely, fundamental to an adult’s exercise of their rights (and an attorney’s duty to advocate for those rights and loyalty to the client) is effectuating their stated wishes, within the applicable legal context. In other legal contexts, nonminor dependents are entitled to the same legal rights and protections provided to other adults. Allowing court-appointed counsel to advocate against their adult client's stated wishes effectively removes a right that nonminor dependents have in other legal proceedings as adults. The social worker can advocate for an outcome that differs from the nonminor dependent’s stated wishes and the court may make an order that differs from those stated wishes (if, for example, the stated wishes conflict with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent). FLEXCOM believes, however, that court-appointed counsel should advocate for the stated wishes of their nonminor dependent client, just as they would do for other adult clients, without substituting their judgment for the wishes of their client.

5. This bill removes the provision permitting an NMD’s counsel to act contrary to their wishes

This bill modifies the provisions relating to an NMD’s court-appointed counsel to require that the NMD’s counsel represent the NMD’s wishes, consistent with an attorney’s obligation to any other competent adult client. This bill is intended to prevent court-appointed counsel from advocating for their own opinion about what is best for the NMD, rather than respecting the NMD’s judgments about their own life. As the bill’s sponsors and supporters note, the NMD’s social worker and counsel representing the county will still be in a position to advance positions contrary to the NMD’s wishes if they believe that the NMD’s wishes are contrary to the NMD’s protection or safety, and the juvenile court will still be able to determine whether to grant an NMD’s requests.

This bill is consistent with the general rule that NMDs are legal adults who generally retain their own decisionmaking authority.^[16] The bill is also consistent with the rules governing attorney representation.^[17]

6. Arguments in support

According to the Children’s Law Center of California:

Currently, existing law requires appointed counsel to represent the best interests of children and nonminor dependents in dependency proceedings. However, this standard is often inappropriately applied to nonminor dependents, who, as legal adults, deserve the right to direct their own representation. The current framework can result in legal counsel overriding the wishes of nonminor dependents (legal adults) in favor of what an attorney perceives to be in their best interest, effectively limiting the nonminor dependents’ decision-making power.

AB 373 directly addresses this issue by:

• Clarifying the role of counsel by requiring that appointed attorneys for nonminor dependents advocate for their expressed wishes rather than substituting their judgment.
• Upholding nonminor autonomy by affirming their right to actively participate in legal decisions regarding housing, education, and employment.
• Distinguishing minors from nonminor dependents by ensuring counsel can continue to advocate for a minor’s best interests while nonminor dependents receive legal representation aligned with their stated interests.

CLC urges the Committee to support AB 373 as it strengthens the rights of nonminor dependents and ensures that counsel is given the mandate to appropriately advocate for them, recognizing their autonomy and needs. This bill represents a crucial step forward in making California’s juvenile dependency system more responsive, just, and respectful of nonminor dependents' voices.

SUPPORT

California Youth Coalition (co-sponsor)

Children’s Law Center of California (co-sponsor)

Children Now

FLEXCOM

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: AB 3049 (Bryan, 2024) would have added requirements for court-appointed minor and NMD counsel and the courts relating to the minor’s or NMD’s rights in dependency proceedings. AB 3049 died in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

PRIOR VOTES:

Assembly Floor (Ayes 64, Noes 0)

Assembly Human Services Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)

Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 9, Noes 0)

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

1. In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 673. ↑

2. In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 626. ↑

3. See id., §§ 360, 361.3, 366.26. ↑

4. P.L. 110-351 (2008). ↑

5. AB 12 (Beall, Ch. 559, Stats. 2010). ↑

6. Welf. & Inst. Code § 11403. ↑

7. See AB 212 (Beall, Ch. 459, Stats. 2011), AB 1712 (Beall, Ch. 846, Stats. 2012), AB 787 (Stone, Ch. 487, Stats. 2013), AB 2454 (Quirk-Silva, Ch. 769, Stats. 2014), AB 2337 (Gipson, Ch. 539, Stats. 2018), AB 748 (Gipson, Ch. 682, Stats. 2019). ↑

8. See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11400(v). ↑

9. California Child Welfare Indicators Project, University of California at Berkeley, Report: Children in Foster Care, CWS/CMS 2024 Quarter 4 Extract (Jun. 12, 2025), available at https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/PIT/MTSG/r/ab636/l (link current as of June 12, 2025). ↑

10. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 317(c). ↑

11. Id. at § 317(c)(2). ↑

12. Id. at § 317(e)(1). ↑

13. Ibid. ↑

14. Ibid. ↑

15. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 1.2 & 1.21. ↑

16. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 303. ↑

17. Rules Prof. Conduct, rules 1.2 & 1.21. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 373

Author:(Blanca Rubio)

As Amended Ver:March 11, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires court-appointed counsel of non-minor dependents to always represent the stated wishes of their clients.

Major Provisions

1. Removes the exception in existing law that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of the non-minor dependent "when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent."
2. Clarifies that it is the primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child.

COMMENTS

Every year in California, thousands of youth emancipate out of foster, and suddenly must provide for themselves. Most youth are not adequately equipped for more than basic survival. Youth emancipating from the foster care system lack support networks, employment skills, and stable living arrangements. The odds are stacked against these youth, and they are at significant risk of homelessness and involvement in the criminal justice system. In 2010, AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, the Fostering Connections Act (Act) provided California with an unprecedented opportunity to access federal funding to improve the lives of our state's most vulnerable youth by providing transitional foster care support (a.k.a. extended foster care or EFC) to qualifying foster youths aged 18-21 years to help them more successfully transition to adulthood.

Numerous studies have found that there are significant benefits to youth being in EFC in terms of educational attainment, increased earnings, and decreased instances of homelessness and criminal justice involvement (see, e.g., Courtney & Hook, 2017; Dworsky, Napolitano, & Courtney, 2013; Hook & Courtney, 2011; Lee, Courtney, & Tajima, 2014). A report from the ongoing California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH) found EFC to be associated with improved educational attainment, increased financial assets, reduced receipt of need-based public aid, and decreased homelessness, economic hardship, and criminal justice system involvement (Courtney & Okpych, 2017). A 2018 study by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago found that youth would continue to benefit from additional years of EFC and that paying for additional years would be cost-effective to the state. (Courtney, M., Okpych, N., & Park, E. (2018). https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Impacts-of-extended-care-age-21.pdf.)

The rights of non-minor dependents juvenile court proceedings; and the responsibilities of their counsel. If a nonminor dependent is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the child or nonminor dependent, unless the court finds that the nonminor dependent would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. (Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 317 (c)(1).) Participation by the non-minor dependent in EFC is voluntary. A non-minor dependent may petition to resume dependency jurisdiction. (WIC Section 303(c).) Any placement or care ordered by the court must be upon "mutual agreement" between the court and the non-minor dependent. (WIC Section 303(d)(1).) Importantly, even though they are in EFC, a nonminor dependent retains “all of their legal decisionmaking authority as an adult.” (WIC Section 303 (d)(1).)

Court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent must be competent. (WIC Section 317.5.) A minor has the right to be present at the hearing, the court shall inform them that they have the right to address the court and participate in the hearing; and the court shall allow the minor, if they so desire, to address the court and participate in the hearing. (WIC Section 349.) The rights set forth in Section 349 to be present and address the court explicitly apply only to a minor, but it seems hard to believe that a juvenile court would not allow a non-minor dependent to address the court if the youth appeared at a hearing regarding their case, for example.

As mentioned above, counsel appointed by the court to represent a non-minor dependent generally must represent the stated wishes of the nonminor dependent. (WIC Section 317(e)(1).) However, there is an exception to this general rule, allowing counsel to advocate for something other than their client’s wishes "when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent." (Ibid.)

Comparison with other states. California's law—allowing court appointed counsel to not advocate for their adult client's stated wishes under some circumstances—is out of line with many other states, some of which require that counsel always advocate for the stated wishes of foster youth, including those foster youth who are not adults. According to the National Association of Counsel for Children, the following states have adopted client-directed representation:

1. For all children: Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont
2. For children of a certain age, competency, or special need: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, Wisconsin

In the above states, counsel for foster youth have the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as they owe to an adult client. A child’s counseled and expressed wishes guide the representation. These states may also be described as having a “client-directed” model of legal representation. If the child were pre-verbal or had diminished capacity, leaving them unable to direct the representation, the attorney would be required to proceed according to the rule, ethics, and practice standards of their jurisdiction. (See https://counselforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Model-of-Rep-Chart-2023.pdf.)

This bill removes the exception in existing law that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of their adult client in a foster care proceeding, "when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent." As a result, the bill would require that court-appointed counsel of non-minor dependents always represent the stated wishes of their clients in a client-directed manner. The bill also clarifies that, for counsel appointed to represent a child (rather than a non-minor dependent), the primary responsibility is to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child (as opposed to their stated wishes).

The author and sponsor of the bill note that allowing court-appointed counsel to advocate against their adult client's stated wishes effectively usurps the rights that these youth have in all other legal proceedings as adults. Given that EFC is a voluntary arrangement, and the foster youth is an adult with the authority to initiate and end that arrangement, logically the youth's stated wishes should always be represented by their court-appointed counsel. While the social worker can advocate for an outcome that differs from the youth's stated wishes; and the court can make an order that differs from those stated wishes (presumably on the basis that the youth's stated wishes conflict with "the protection or safety" of the youth); court-appointed counsel for the youth arguably always should be required to advocate for their client's wishes, just as they would be required to do for any other adult client. Counsel arguably should not be able to substitute their judgment for the wishes of their client and act according to what they perceive to be in their client's best interest. The bill accordingly removes from existing law an exception that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to represent something other than the stated wishes of the non-minor dependent "when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent."

According to the Author

The dependency court system often feels like an overwhelming and disempowering experience, especially for youth in care. Attorneys who focus on the expressed wishes of nonminor dependents help reduce this sense of powerlessness, reinforcing the idea that the legal process is there to support, not dictate, the young adult's life decisions.

Assembly Bill 373 . . .[would] clarify that when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent, the counsel's primary responsibility is to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent, rather than acting solely as an advocate for their best interests.

Arguments in Support

Children's Law Center of California (CLC), the largest nonprofit, public interest law firm in the nation dedicated solely to protecting the rights of children and sponsor of the bill, writes as follows to explain the need for the bill:

CLC strongly believes that AB 373 is a crucial step toward ensuring that nonminor dependents in California's juvenile court system receive the full protection of their rights. This bill would remove the existing exception allowing counsel to disregard a nonminor dependent's expressed wishes when those wishes conflict with their safety or protection. By removing this exception, AB 373 ensures that a nonminor's voice is always heard and that their legal counsel will represent their desires, without compromise.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

None

VOTES

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-0-3

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Stefani, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon, Essayli, Sanchez

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 6-0-1

YES: Lee, Castillo, Calderon, Elhawary, Jackson, Celeste Rodriguez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

UPDATED

VERSION: February 3, 2025

CONSULTANT: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0000184

Date of Hearing: March 25, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Alex Lee, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 373 (

Author:Blanca Rubio) – As Amended Ver:March 11, 2025

SUBJECT: Dependency proceedings: counsel

SUMMARY: Removes the exception, when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent (NMD), requiring counsel to be charged with representing the wishes of the NMD except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines “nonminor dependent” as a current foster youth or a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the court who is at least 18 and not more than 21 years of age, turned 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement, is in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, or Indian tribe, and is participating in a transitional independent living plan, as specified. (Welfare and Institutions Code [WIC] § 11400(v))
2. Authorizes the court, when it appears that a parent, guardian, or Indian custodian, of the child desires counsel but is unable to afford and cannot for that reason employ counsel, to appoint counsel for the parent or Indian custodian. (WIC § 317(a)(1))
3. Requires the court, when it appears that a parent or guardian of the child is unable to afford and cannot for that reason employ counsel, and the child has been placed in out-of-home care, or the petitioning agency is recommending that the child be placed in out-of-home care, to appoint counsel for the parent or guardian, unless the court finds that the parent or guardian has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel as provided. (WIC § 317(b))
4. Requires the court to appoint counsel for the child or NMD, if a child or NMD is not represented by counsel, unless the court finds that the child or NMD would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. Requires the court to state on the record its reasons for that finding. (WIC § 317(c)(1))
5. Requires a primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or NMD to be to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or NMD. (WIC § 317(c)(2))
6. Allows counsel to be a district attorney, public defender, or other member of the bar, provided that they do not represent another party or county agency whose interests conflict with the child’s or NMD’s interests. Provides that the fact the district attorney represents the child or NMD in a proceeding pursuant to allegations of neglect and abuse as well as conducts a criminal investigation or files a criminal complaint or information arising from the same or reasonably related set of facts is not in and of itself a conflict of interest. (WIC § 317(c)(3))
7. Requires counsel to represent the parent, guardian, child, or NMD at the detention hearing and at all subsequent proceedings before the juvenile court. Requires counsel to continue to represent the parent, guardian, child, or NMD unless relieved by the court upon the substitution of other counsel or for cause. Requires the representation to include representing the parent, guardian, or the child in termination proceedings and in those proceedings relating to the institution or setting aside of a legal guardianship. Specifies, in the case of an NMD, no representation by counsel shall be provided for a parent, unless the parent is receiving court-ordered family reunification services. (WIC § 317(d))
8. Provides that counsel shall be charged in general with the representation of the child’s interests. To that end, counsel shall make or cause to have made any further investigations that they deem in good faith to be reasonably necessary to ascertain the facts, including the interviewing of witnesses, and shall examine and cross-examine witnesses in both the adjudicatory and dispositional hearings. Authorizes counsel to also introduce and examine their own witnesses, make recommendations to the court concerning the child’s welfare, and participate further in the proceedings to the degree necessary to adequately represent the child. Charges counsel, when counsel is appointed to represent an NMD, with representing the wishes of the NMD except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the NMD. Requires the court, if the court finds that an NMD is not competent to direct counsel, the court to appoint a guardian ad litem for the NMD. (WIC § 317(e)(1))

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill was keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Background: Extended Foster Care and Nonminor Dependents. California was one of the first states to opt into the federal opportunity to create an extended foster care program, which represented a historic expansion of services to foster youth. Extending foster care to those who were over 18 years of age was intended to improve outcomes for youth who often faced enormous challenges as they emancipated from the foster care system at 18 years of age and experienced poverty, homelessness, and incarceration at levels much higher than their non-foster youth peers.

In 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010, which extended foster care benefits for certain eligible youth until the age of 21. Prior to the adoption of AB 12, known as the Fostering Connections to Success Act, youth aged out of the child welfare system at 18 years of age and were required to navigate the challenges of young adulthood, including obtaining education, stable housing, and employment, without the support provided by the child welfare system. In recognition of these difficulties, AB 12 provided eligible youth between 18 and 21 years of age, known as NMDs, with the services and supports they need to experience independent living in supervised living environments. Extended foster care also enables youth to obtain educational and employment training to better prepare them to transition to adulthood and self-sufficiency.

At the six-month hearing prior to a youth attaining 18 years of age, the youth’s social worker or probation officer must have a plan to ensure that the youth will meet at least one of the following criteria for participation in extended foster care:

1. Be enrolled in a high school or equivalent program;
2. Be enrolled in a college, community college, or vocational program;
3. Be employed at least 80 hours a month;
4. Participate in a program or activity designed to remove barriers to employment; or,
5. Be unable to do one of the above requirements due to a medical condition.

NMDs must also sign an agreement to remain in foster care within six months of turning 18 years of age, reside in an eligible placement, and agree to work with their social worker to meet the goals of their transitional living plan.

This bill would require counsel that is appointed to represent an NMD during these hearings to be charged with representing their wishes in the same manner as any other adult client.

Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child’s welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents’ custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. The permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.

Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker’s petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.

At the dispositional hearing, the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance use disorder counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.

Except for limited circumstances, if the child is not returned to the parent’s custody at the 18-month permanency reviewing hearing, the juvenile court is required to terminate reunification services and set a hearing to terminate parental rights. The court then determines whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian, but the court’s authority to set the hearing to terminate parental rights is not conditioned on whether reasonable services were provided.

Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “[This bill] seeks to amend California Welfare and Institutions Code (“WIC”) Section 317(e) to clarify that when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent, the counsel’s primary responsibility is to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent, rather than acting solely as an advocate for their best interests.”

Equity Implications: Foster youth are among our state’s most vulnerable populations. Close to 31% of transition-age foster youth experience homelessness, another 25% come into contact with the justice system within two years of aging out of foster care and about 20% report having a health condition or disability that limits their daily activities. Only 50% complete their high school education, and less than 10% attain a college degree. California’s foster youth population is disproportionately Black and Latino when compared to their non-foster youth peers. As a result, foster youth face significant barriers while in the system, and have even more challenges as they transition into adulthood and experience self-sufficiency. While foster youth in extended foster care face more obstacles than their non-foster youth peers, and are participating in a program to assist their transition to adulthood, they are still non-minors who have the capacity and right to have counsel who represents their wishes.

Double referral: This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 11, 2025, and was approved on a 9-0 vote.

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010, see comments above.

AB 1712 (Beall), Chapter 846, Statutes of 2012, enacted numerous technical, clarifying, and federal conformity changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2010.

AB 1909 (Ammiano), Chapter 849, Statutes of 2012, required schools to notify a foster youth’s attorney and representative of the county child welfare agency of pending expulsion or other disciplinary proceedings.

SB 926 (Runner), Chapter 132, Statutes of 2011, authorized counsel for the child or counsel’s agent to disclose to a relative who is being assessed for the possibility of placement of the child the fact that the child is in custody and other related information.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Youth Connection (CYC) (Co-Sponsor)

Children's Law Center of California (Co-Sponsor)

California Alliance of Caregivers

Children Now

John Burton Advocates for Youth

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089

Date of Hearing: March 11, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 373

Author:(Blanca Rubio) – As Introduced Ver:February 3, 2025

SUBJECT: Dependency proceedings: counsel

KEY ISSUE: should the court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent be required to always represent the stated wishes of the non-minor dependent given that they, unlike other youth in the child welfare sytem, Have the legal decision-making authority of other adults?

SYNOPSIS

Children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment may be deemed dependents of the juvenile court and provided with services, supports and interventions aimed at protecting them and their health and safety. In order to provide much needed support for older foster youth who age out of the system, the law allows a juvenile court to extend its jurisdiction after the youth reaches the age of 18 years (when they are a “non-minor dependent”), and until they reach 21 years of age for extended foster care (EFC).

If a nonminor dependent is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the child or nonminor dependent, unless the court finds that the nonminor dependent would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. Importantly, even though they are in EFC, a nonminor dependent retains “all of their legal decisionmaking authority as an adult.” (Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 303 (d)(1).) Counsel appointed by the court to represent a non-minor dependent generally must represent the stated wishes of the nonminor dependent. (Section 317 (e)(1).) However, there is an exception to this general rule, allowing counsel to advocate for something other than their client’s wishes “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.” (Ibid.) This law—allowing court appointed counsel to not advocate for their adult client’s stated wishes under some circumstances—is out of line with many other states, some of which require that counsel always advocate for the stated wishes of foster youth, including those foster youth who are not adults.

This bill, sponsored by Children’s Law Center of California (CLC), removes the exception in existing law that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of their adult client in a foster care proceeding, “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.” As a result, the bill would require that court-appointed counsel of non-minor dependents always represent the stated wishes of their clients in a client-directed manner. The bill has no support (other than CLC) and no opposition on file.

SUMMARY: Requires court-appointed counsel of non-minor dependents to always represent the stated wishes of their clients. Specifically, this bill removes the exception in existing law that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of the non-minor dependent “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.”

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300. Unless stated otherwise, all further statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.)
2. Establishes that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is the maximum safety and protection for children who are currently being abused, neglected, or exploited. Provides that the focus is on the preservation of the family, as well as the safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being of the child. (Section 300.2.)
3. Provides the court may have within its jurisdiction any youth, between the age of majority and 21 years, as defined. Provides that a youth over the age of 18 years shall retain all of their legal decision-making authority as an adult, except as specified. (Section 303.)
4. Defines “nonminor dependent” as a current foster youth or a nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the court who is between 18 and 21 years old, turned 18 years old while under an order of foster care placement, is in foster care under the responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, or Indian Tribe, and is participating in a transitional independent living plan, as specified. (Section 11400 (v).)
5. Requires the status of every minor or NMD in foster care to be reviewed by the court at least once every six months, as specified. (Section 366.)
6. Requires the court, in regular status reviews after the youth has attained 16 years of age, to review the status of providing the youth certain information, documents, and services, including the social security card, birth certificate, driver’s license or identification card; assistance obtaining employment; assistance applying to college and financial aid; and information regarding financial literacy programs. (Sections 366.3 and 391 (a).)
7. Requires the court, in the last regular status review before the youth has attained 18 years of age to review the status of providing the youth certain information, documents, and services, including the social security card, birth certificate, driver’s license or identification card, Medi-Cal benefits card, proof of the youth’s citizenship or legal residence, and an advance health care directive. (Sections 366.3 and 391 (b).)
8. Provides that if a child or nonminor dependent is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the child or nonminor dependent, unless the court finds that the child or nonminor dependent would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. (Section 317 (c)(1).)
9. Makes it the primary responsibility of counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent to advocate for the protection, safety, and physical and emotional well-being of the child or nonminor dependent. (Section 317 (c)(2).)
10. Requires that counsel appointed to represent a child or nonminor dependent shall be charged in general with the representation of the child’s interests; clarifies that when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent, counsel is charged with representing the wishes of the nonminor dependent, except when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent. If the court finds that a nonminor dependent is not competent to direct counsel, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the nonminor dependent. (Section 317 (e)(1).) 
11. Requires, pursuant to court rule, that children’s counsel “or their agents” meet regularly with their clients, regardless of their age; requires attorneys themselves to “have sufficient contact with the child to establish and maintain an adequate and professional attorney-client relationship”; and mandates that attorneys provide their contact information to their client’s caregiver, as well as to children who are aged 10 years or older. (Rule 5.660 (d), California Rules of Court.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal.

COMMENTS: This bill, sponsored by the Children’s Law Center of California, removes a provision from existing law allowing court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of their adult client under some circumstances, specifically “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.” As a result, the bill would require that court-appointed counsel of these adult-aged foster youth always represent the stated wishes of their clients. According to the author:

The dependency court system often feels like an overwhelming and disempowering experience, especially for youth in care. Attorneys who focus on the expressed wishes of nonminor dependents help reduce this sense of powerlessness, reinforcing the idea that the legal process is there to support, not dictate, the young adult’s life decisions.

Assembly Bill 373 . . .[would] clarify that when counsel is appointed to represent a nonminor dependent, the counsel’s primary responsibility is to represent the wishes of the nonminor dependent, rather than acting solely as an advocate for their best interests.

Overview of child welfare services, juvenile dependency court, and extended foster care (EFC). Children who are at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment may be deemed dependents of the juvenile court and provided with services, supports and interventions aimed at protecting them and their health and safety. The system aims to preserve and strengthen families by maintaining or reuniting children with their parents whenever appropriate. The dependency process begins when child abuse, neglect, or abandonment is reported to the local child welfare agency. A social worker with the child welfare agency investigates the allegation to determine if the child requires protection in order to ensure their safety. If so, the child welfare agency files a petition with the juvenile court to make the child a dependent of the court. If necessary, the social worker will remove the child from their home and take the child into protective custody.

At the subsequent court hearing, the court may elect to keep the child in, or return the child to, their home or remove the child from the home. Removal may either result in eventual reunification with the family, or the court may determine that an alternate permanent placement –including the options of guardianship or adoption – is more fitting. When reunification is not possible or appropriate, children are placed in the setting deemed least restrictive and most suitable; the court must give preference to potential placements with relatives or nonrelative extended family members.

Throughout this process, there are multiple court hearings – including the detention hearing, jurisdictional hearing and dispositional hearing, followed by ongoing review hearings and a permanency hearing – where the custody of a foster youth or their placement is evaluated, reviewed, and determined by the court, in consultation with the youth’s social worker appointed by the county and their attorney, to help provide the best possible support and services to the youth. In order to provide much needed support for older foster youth who age out of the system, the law allows a juvenile court to extend its jurisdiction after the youth reaches the age of 18 years (when they are a “non-minor dependent”), and until they reach 21 years of age.

Challenges in general for youth who age out of the foster care system. Generally, youth who have experienced foster care do not have the same safety nets and support networks as other youth their age, and the transition challenges can be even greater. Shockingly, 25% of former foster youth experience homelessness within four years of emancipation; and 50% of all persons who are unhoused report previously being in the foster care system. (National Foster Youth Institute, “Housing and Homelessness,” available at nfyi.org/issues/homelessness/.) When youth “age out” of the foster care system, it is often without being reunited with family or connected to other supportive adults. Historically, youth have left the system without being provided with access to information they would otherwise need as adults, such as identification, health, and educational records or help applying to colleges, for public benefits, or securing housing. Where many youths have parents to assist them and provide them with guidance, emancipating foster youth may not have that parental support or even any adult support. Rather, the youth are faced with the task of being both parent and child for themselves.

Every year in California, thousands of youth emancipate out of foster, and suddenly must provide for themselves. Most youth are not adequately equipped for more than basic survival. Youth emancipating from the foster care system lack support networks, employment skills, and stable living arrangements. The odds are stacked against these youth, and they are at significant risk of homelessness and involvement in the criminal justice system. In 2010, AB 12 (Beall), Chap. 559, the Fostering Connections Act (hereafter, “the Act”) provided California with an unprecedented opportunity to access federal funding to improve the lives of our state’s most vulnerable youth by providing transitional foster care support to qualifying foster youths aged 18-21 years to help them more successfully transition to adulthood.

In the years after the Act’s passage, the Legislature passed several additional measures to refine, and close gaps in, the laws governing foster care for youths between 18 and 21 years of age. For example:

• AB 212 (Beall, Ch. 459, Stats. 2011) – among other things, provided former foster youth who opt out of EFC with the option of reentering foster care by signing a voluntary placement agreement as his or her own guardian; and adjusted the way wards can opt in to foster care beyond their 18th birthday without having to prolong their delinquent status.
• AB 1712 (Beall, Ch. 846, Stats. 2012) – among other things, made NMDs eligible for the court-appointed special advocate (CASA) program so that volunteer CASAs can provide designated services and support to youth under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and clarified that they were eligible for Adoption Assistance Program (AAP) benefits.
• AB 787 (Stone, Ch. 487, Stats. 2013) – among other things, allowed re-entry into nonminor dependency for former NMDs who reached permanency whose guardian or relative or adoptive parent died before their 21st birthday; and ensured that minors participating in a voluntary placement agreement may become eligible for EFC pursuant to required actions of the child welfare agency and the juvenile court.
• AB 2454 (Quirk-Silva, Ch. 769, Stats. 2014) - permitted a former NMD who was receiving Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program or AAP assistance after they turned 18 years of age and whose guardian(s) or adoptive parent(s) are failing to provide ongoing support for the NMD, as conditioned upon the receipt of Kin-GAP or AAP services, to voluntarily re-enter EFC upon the approval of the juvenile court.
• AB 2337 (Gipson, Ch. 539, Stats. 2018) – expanded the circumstances under which nonminor dependents under the age of 21 years of age who was previously a dependent or delinquent child of the juvenile court may petition the court to assume dependency jurisdiction to include youth who would have received Kin-GAP payments were it not for the receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or other federal aid, and extends eligibility to Aid to Families with Dependent Children- Foster Care (AFDC-FC), AAP, and Kin-GAP, to NMDs who, but for the receipt of SSI benefits or other aid, would have received benefits, under certain circumstances.
• AB 748 (Gipson, Ch. 682, Stats. 2019) – required the court to hold a dispositional proceeding for a youth who is 18 years of age in order to be eligible for EFC benefits if certain criteria are met.

Until fairly recently, California’s population of children and youths in foster care hovered around 55,000, though it currently is down to just over 40,000. (California Child Welfare Indicators Project, University of California at Berkeley, Report: Children in Foster Care, CWS/CMS 2024 Quarter 3 Extract (Mar. 6, 2025), available at https://ccwip.berkeley.edu/childwelfare/reports/PIT/MTMG/r/ab636/l.) Prior to the Fostering Connections Act, the statistics surrounding emancipation from foster care were bleak. Foster youth, when compared to other young adults of the same age and race, were less likely to complete high school, attend college, or be employed, and were at a higher risk of becoming homeless, arrested, or incarcerated. (See Public Policy Institute of California, Foster Care in California (2010).) The Act and the related subsequent legislation described above were intended to provide foster youth with the option of a smoother transition to independent adulthood. Since the Act’s passage, the number of foster youth between 18 and 21 years of age has increased considerably, from under 2,500 in 2010 to 7,170 in October 2022. (Ibid.) As of March 2025, 6,751 non-minor dependents are in the child welfare system.

Numerous studies have found that there are significant benefits to youth being in EFC in terms of educational attainment, increased earnings, and decreased instances of homelessness and criminal justice involvement (see, e.g., Courtney & Hook, 2017; Dworsky, Napolitano, & Courtney, 2013; Hook & Courtney, 2011; Lee, Courtney, & Tajima, 2014). A report from the ongoing California Youth Transitions to Adulthood Study (CalYOUTH) found EFC to be associated with improved educational attainment, increased financial assets, reduced receipt of need-based public aid, and decreased homelessness, economic hardship, and criminal justice system involvement (Courtney & Okpych, 2017). A 2018 study by Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago found that youth would continue to benefit from additional years of EFC and that paying for additional years would be cost-effective to the state. (Courtney, M., Okpych, N., & Park, E. (2018). https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/PDF/Impacts-of-extended-care-age-21.pdf.)

The rights of non-minor dependents juvenile court proceedings; and the responsibilities of their counsel. If a nonminor dependent is not represented by counsel, the court shall appoint counsel for the child or nonminor dependent, unless the court finds that the nonminor dependent would not benefit from the appointment of counsel. (Section 317 (c)(1).) Participation by the non-minor dependent in EFC is voluntary. A non-minor dependent may petition to resume dependency jurisdiction. (Section 303 (c).) Any placement or care ordered by the court must be upon “mutual agreement” between the court and the non-minor dependent. (Section 303 (d)(1).) Importantly, even though they are in EFC, a nonminor dependent retains “all of their legal decisionmaking authority as an adult.” (Section 303 (d)(1).)

Court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent must be competent. (Section 317.5.) A minor has the right to be present at the hearing, the court shall inform them that they have the right to address the court and participate in the hearing; and the court shall allow the minor, if they so desire, to address the court and participate in the hearing. (Section 349.) The rights set forth in Section 349 to be present and address the court explicitly apply only to a minor, but it seems hard to believe that a juvenile court would not allow a non-minor dependent to address the court if the youth appeared at a hearing regarding their case, for example.

As mentioned above, counsel appointed by the court to represent a non-minor dependent generally must represent the stated wishes of the nonminor dependent. (Section 317 (e)(1).) However, there is an exception to this general rule, allowing counsel to advocate for something other than their client’s wishes “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.” (Ibid.)

Comparison with other states. California’s law—allowing court appointed counsel to not advocate for their adult client’s stated wishes under some circumstances—is out of line with many other states, some of which require that counsel always advocate for the stated wishes of foster youth, including those foster youth who are not adults. According to the National Association of Counsel for Children, the following states have adopted client-directed representation:

• For all children: Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont
• For children of a certain age, competency, or special need: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington, Wisconsin

In the above states, counsel for foster youth have the same duties of undivided loyalty, confidentiality, and competent representation to the child as they owe to an adult client. A child’s counseled and expressed wishes guide the representation. These states may also be described as having a “client-directed” model of legal representation. If the child were pre-verbal or had diminished capacity, leaving them unable to direct the representation, the attorney would be required to proceed according to the rule, ethics, and practice standards of their jurisdiction. (See https://counselforkids.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Model-of-Rep-Chart-2023.pdf.)

This bill removes the exception in existing law that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to advocate for something other than the stated wishes of their adult client in a foster care proceeding, “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.” As a result, the bill would require that court-appointed counsel of non-minor dependents always represent the stated wishes of their clients in a client-directed manner.

The author and sponsor of the bill argue that allowing court-appointed counsel to advocate against their adult client’s stated wishes effectively usurps the rights that these youth have in all other legal proceedings as adults. Given that EFC is a voluntary arrangement, and the foster youth is an adult with the authority to initiate and end that arrangement, logically the youth’s stated wishes should always be represented by their court-appointed counsel. While the social worker can advocate for an outcome that differs from the youth’s stated wishes; and the court can make an order that differs from those stated wishes (presumably on the basis that the youth’s stated wishes conflict with “the protection or safety” of the youth); court-appointed counsel for the youth arguably always should be required to advocate for their client’s wishes, just as they would be required to do for any other adult client. Counsel arguably should not be able to substitute their judgment for the wishes of their client and act according to what they perceive to be in their client’s best interest. The bill accordingly removes from existing law an exception that allows court-appointed counsel of a non-minor dependent to represent something other than the stated wishes of the non-minor dependent “when advocating for those wishes conflicts with the protection or safety of the nonminor dependent.”

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Children’s Law Center of California (CLC), the largest nonprofit, public interest law firm in the nation dedicated solely to protecting the rights of children and sponsor of the bill, writes as follows to explain the need for the bill:

CLC strongly believes that AB 373 is a crucial step toward ensuring that nonminor dependents in California’s juvenile court system receive the full protection of their rights. This bill would remove the existing exception allowing counsel to disregard a nonminor dependent's expressed wishes when those wishes conflict with their safety or protection. By removing this exception, AB 373 ensures that a nonminor’s voice is always heard and that their legal counsel will represent their desires, without compromise.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Children’s Law Center of California (sponsor)

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334