Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law requires a social worker who has cause to believe that a child meets the requirements to be adjudged a dependent of the court to immediately conduct an investigation to determine whether child welfare services should be offered to the family and whether proceedings in the juvenile court should be commenced. Existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper.

This bill would require a social worker, if an investigation involves an allegation that a parent or guardian has used or is under the influence of fentanyl or other opioids, to document whether the risk of fentanyl or opioid exposure to the child was specifically assessed, as specified. The bill would also require a juvenile court that finds a risk of fentanyl use use, as specified, by a parent or guardian to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl. If the court finds a risk of fentanyl use, the bill would require the case plan for the parent or guardian to include certain resources, including, among others, information on the proper storage of controlled substances and prescription medications. By imposing additional duties on county social workers, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper.

This bill would require, if require a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances, that test panel include testing that finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper.

This bill would require, if a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances, that test panel include testing for fentanyl.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper.

This bill would require, if a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances, the that test panel to include testing for fentanyl.

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge children to be dependents of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper.

This bill would require, if a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances, the test panel to include testing for fentanyl.

Date of Hearing: August 5, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1234

Author:(Alvarado-Gil) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

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

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a juvenile court that finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian whose child has been removed from the home to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl and require fentanyl-related resources be included in the parent or guardian’s case plan.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a juvenile court that finds, based on specified evidence, a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian whose child has been removed from the home to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl.
2. If the court makes a finding of risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian, requires the case plan for that parent or guardian to include:
3. Information on the proper storage of controlled substances and prescription medications in a manner inaccessible to children, including, where appropriate, a lock box or other secure storage device.
4. Access to fentanyl test strips and education on their use, consistent with resources available through the Naloxone Distribution Project or successor program under the State Department of Public Health.
5. Access to naloxone and training on its administration for all adult members of the household.
6. Referral to an in-home safety assessment to identify and remediate accessible drug paraphernalia or residue in areas of the home where the child has access.
7. Specifies a social worker is not required to verify compliance with item 2, above, as a condition of reunification, or to alter any other requirement otherwise applicable to the disposition of the case.
8. Requires a social worker, if an investigation to determine whether child welfare services should be offered and whether proceedings in the juvenile court should be commenced involves an allegation that a parent or guardian has used or is under the influence of fentanyl or other opioids, to document whether the risk of fentanyl or opioid exposure to the child was specifically assessed, separate from any general assessment of substance use, as part of the disposition determination required by existing law.
9. Specifies the provision in item 4, above, does not require the social worker to refer the family for child welfare services or to commence proceedings in the juvenile court.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) estimates ongoing General Fund (GF) administrative costs to counties of approximately $2.5 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2027-28, including $577,000 for additional fentanyl testing for parents or guardians found to be at risk of fentanyl use, $633,000 for county social workers to update case plans as necessary to include information on fentanyl safety, and $1.3 million for social workers to document the risk of fentanyl exposure for investigations with alleged fentanyl or other opioid use.

Although these are state-mandated costs, they are not reimbursable, but instead must be funded by the state pursuant to Proposition 30, which requires legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including child welfare services and foster care) to apply to local agencies only to the extent the state provides annual funding for the cost increase.

1. Ongoing minor costs to the juvenile courts (Trial Court Trust Fund, GF) to make additional findings of risk of fentanyl use and order testing.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

This measure is intended to honor the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and to recognize the profound impact these losses have had on families and parents across communities. [This bill] addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian in dependency proceedings, the court may obtain information necessary to assess that risk through drug testing. Existing law does not specifically address situations in which there is a concern regarding fentanyl use, despite the unique dangers posed by this highly potent synthetic opioid.

1. Background. Juvenile Court Orders. Existing law requires a social worker who has cause to believe a child meets the requirements to be adjudged a dependent of the court to immediately conduct an investigation to determine whether child welfare services should be offered to the family and whether proceedings in the juvenile court should be commenced. Existing law and regulations require a social worker to collaborate with parents to create an initial case plan within 30 days of a child being taken into protective custody.

If a child is formally adjudged a dependent of the court, existing law authorizes a court to make any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child as the court deems necessary and proper, which may include counseling services, whether for substance abuse or family counseling, and testing for controlled substances. When substance use is a basis for removal, the case plan typically includes substance use disorder treatment, and testing is used to verify compliance and progress.

Counties are responsible for providing access to court-ordered drug testing in juvenile dependency cases. Counties typically contract with a testing provider for standardized drug panel templates. Existing law does not require specific substances be included, and these panels may or may not include specific testing for fentanyl.

According to the California Welfare Directors Association, a testing provider typically works with parents on substance abuse counseling and treatment to regularly test for alcohol or other substances as part of that parent’s reunification services. Some counties require fentanyl be included in the testing panel, others will request it upon suspicion of fentanyl use, while others do not include it at all.

This bill requires a judge to order a parent to submit to testing for fentanyl if the juvenile court finds a risk of fentanyl use and requires the case plan to include information and resources associated with fentanyl use.

Prevention. According to the Assembly Human Services Committee’s analysis, “several cases of the deaths of children in California related to fentanyl involved children who died before a dependency case existed.” The analysis explains, “Child welfare policy has historically focused more on responding to harm after it occurs than on preventing it in the first place, but recent shifts have emphasized the importance of preventing families from coming into care.”

To facilitate identifying a parent who has used or is under the influence of fentanyl or other opioids before a child is removed from the home, this bill requires a social worker to document whether a risk or fentanyl or opioid exposure to the child was separately assessed as part of the disposition determination when an initial investigation involves an allegation of fentanyl or opioid use by the parent.

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

Date of Hearing: June 30, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Alex Lee, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1234

Author:(Alvarado-Gil) – As Amended Ver:June 8, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: Dependency: fentanyl testing

SUMMARY: Requires the juvenile court, if it finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian (parent) whose child has been removed from the home, to order the parent to submit to testing for fentanyl, as part of the services designed to eliminate the conditions that led to the child being removed.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires a social worker, if they have cause to believe that a child is suffering neglect or abuse, to immediately make any investigation they deem necessary to determine whether child welfare services should be offered to the family and whether proceedings in the juvenile court should be commenced. Requires the social worker, if it is determined that it is appropriate to offer child welfare services to the family, to make a referral to services and prohibits an inference regarding the credibility of the allegations or the need for child welfare services from being drawn from the mere existence of a child custody or visitation dispute. (Welfare and Institutions Code [WIC] § 328(a))
2. Authorizes the court to remove a child from parental custody if it finds the child cannot safely remain there. Requires any report submitted to the court by the social worker to include the child's individual case plan to address the family's core safety and placement issues. (WIC § 358)
3. Requires every court-ordered social study or evaluation for a dependent child to include a detailed factual discussion on several key elements regarding welfare and placement to determine if a child can safely return to a parent enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows the child to reside there. Outlines additional duties to document, including whether child protective services were offered, whether to recommend reunification or alternative permanent plans, and an evaluation of grandparent visitation and relative placements. (WIC § 358.1)
4. Requires the court to order child welfare services for the family when a child is removed from custody. Mandates court-ordered reunification services for 12 months after entering foster care if the child was three years of age or older when removed. Limits court-ordered reunification services to six months from the dispositional hearing if the child was under three years of age when initially removed. (WIC § 361.5(a))
5. Requires the court to hold a dispositional hearing to decide whether to order reunification services and requires the social worker to prepare a report discussing the provision of these services. Identifies previous service failure, substance-induced abuse, violent history, or unchangeable behavior as factors indicating reunification is unlikely to be successful. That the parent or guardian of the child has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment for this problem during a three-year period immediately prior to the filing of the petition that brought that child to the court’s attention, or has failed or refused to comply with a program of drug or alcohol treatment described in the required case on at least two prior occasions, even though the programs identified were available and accessible. Specifies that “resisted” means the parent refused to participate meaningfully in a prior court-ordered drug or alcohol treatment program and does not include “passive resistance,” as described in In re B.E. (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 932. (WIC § 361.5(b))
6. Authorizes the court, if a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the child has suffered abuse and neglect, to make any and all reasonable orders for the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of the child, including medical treatment, subject to further order of the court. (WIC § 362(a))
7. Requires, if a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court on the ground that the child is has been abused or neglected, and the court orders that a parent shall retain custody of the child subject to the supervision of the social worker, the parents to be required to participate in child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency designated by the court. (WIC § 362(c))
8. Authorizes the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents of the child who is the subject of any of these proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Specifies that order may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Requires the program in which a parent is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child has been abused or neglected. (WIC § 362(d))
9. Requires the case plan to be developed considering the recommendations of the child and family team, as follows:
10. The case plan shall be based upon an assessment of the circumstances that required child welfare services intervention. The child shall be involved in developing the case plan as age and developmentally appropriate; and,
11. The case plan shall identify specific goals and the appropriateness of the planned services in meeting those goals. (WIC §16501.1(g)(1-2))
12. Requires the court, when making reasonable orders to inquire whether a parent can afford the court-ordered services. (WIC § 362(f))
13. Specifies that if allegations of child abuse are made during a child custody proceeding and the court has concerns regarding the child’s safety, the court may take any reasonable, temporary steps as the court, in its discretion, deems appropriate under the circumstances to protect the child’s safety until an investigation can be completed. Authorizes the court, if allegations of child abuse are made during a child custody proceeding, to request that the local child welfare services agency conduct an investigation of the allegations and for the agency to report its findings to the court. (Family Code § 3027)

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

COMMENTS: This analysis only discusses policy issues germane to the Assembly Committee on Human Services.

Background: When an Allegation of Neglect or Abuse is Made. When a report comes in alleging a child may need protection from abuse, neglect, or both, a social worker investigates to figure out whether the family needs services and whether the case should go to juvenile court for removal of the child from the home. How the investigation is conducted is largely left to the social worker’s discretion. If it is determined that services are warranted, the case can be referred for voluntary family support or moved toward a formal court petition depending on the severity of the findings. If the social worker finds that the child cannot remain safely in the home, they file a petition that brings the case into juvenile court where a judge takes over, and the formal dependency process begins which can include reunification or the termination of parental rights.

The Case Plan and Court Orders. Existing law gives the juvenile dependency judge the legal power to order parents to do things like attend therapy, complete drug tests, or provide medical care when a child has been removed from the home due to neglect or abuse. A social worker is required to collaborate with parents to create an initial case plan within 30 days of the child being taken into protective custody. At the jurisdiction hearing, the court determines whether the allegations are true. If the court finds the abuse and/or neglect allegations are true, the child is formally adjudged a dependent. The dispositional hearing is where the case plan is officially finalized, and the judge formally adopts the plan as outlined in the case plan, establishes the visitation terms, and issues specific requirements for the parents to meet. Any program or action the court mandates is required to specifically eliminate the exact conditions that led to the child being removed.

Drug testing is used as a monitoring tool within the reunification services ordered in the juvenile court, not as a standalone requirement. When substance use is a basis for removal, the case plan required under current law typically includes substance use disorder treatment, and testing is used to verify compliance and progress, which is then included in the six-month and twelve-month review hearings on whether to continue, modify, or terminate services.

Existing law lists bypass provisions, which are rules that determine when the state can deny the offering of reunification services, including where a parent has a history of “extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol” and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment. Test results, or refusals, are often the basis for invoking or negating a bypass argument for reunification services.

SB 463 (Wahab), Chapter 714, Statutes of 2023, eliminated the prior evidentiary presumption that a parent's lack of participation or progress in a treatment program endangers the child for return-of-custody purposes which means a positive test or treatment lapse is no longer automatically dispositive. This means a positive test is only one factor the court considers, which reflects an individualized, less systematic weight on test results.

This bill would order a parent to submit to testing for fentanyl if the juvenile court finds a risk of fentanyl use.

What Typically Happens When a Parent Tests Positive. There is no single statewide mandated consequence for parents in the juvenile court who test positive for substances. In practice, county child welfare agencies and courts treat a positive test as one data point used as a case-by-case judgment, to generally assess multiple factors. For example, a single positive test for a substance with a documented prescription, versus repeated positives, or a no-show or refused test can provide insight on the severity or frequency of substance use. Determinations of whether the substance and pattern of use are impairing the parent's capacity to safely supervise the child is the current standard under existing law, not the use itself.

Where in the case timeline a positive test occurs can also help determine the impact on reunification. For example, a positive test pre-disposition can support removal or more restrictive visitation, while a mid-reunification positive test typically triggers an updated case plan, increased testing frequency, or change to outpatient or residential treatment. When a positive test occurs closer to a review hearing, it can factor into the court's reasonable services and progress findings. Some commonly used options that don’t include termination of parental rights include increased testing frequency, referral to a higher level of treatment, requiring a sober support person to be present, and adjusted visitation, i.e. supervised vs. unsupervised. Removal or non-reunification is reserved for chronic, unaddressed use connected to demonstrated risk to the child, as compared to the existing bypass criteria. Social workers are authorized to exercise discretion, and practice varies by county and judicial officer.

How Counties Currently Decide What is Included on Drug Testing Panels. Counties contract with toxicology vendors often through the county's alcohol and drug services department or court-affiliated testing contractor for standardized urine panels, typically built on a 5- or 10-panel template to include THC, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines/methamphetamine, PCP, sometimes benzodiazepines, and barbiturates. Standard 5- and 10-panel tests do not detect fentanyl by default, because fentanyl is structurally a synthetic opioid distinct from the semi-synthetic opiates such as morphine, codeine, heroin. Detecting fentanyl requires a separately ordered, specific fentanyl test.

Similar to fentanyl, xylazine, also known as “tranq,” is not detected on a standard drug testing panel and would need to be specifically ordered in order to capture whether someone is using it.

Kratom, which is legal in most of California, but unregulated, has been the subject of an increasing number of poison-control calls and is also not detectable on a standard drug panel.

The federal Health and Human Services Agency added fentanyl to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration workplace testing panel effective July 2025, and the federal Department of Transportation is similarly in progress for employment testing.

What constitutes a drug panel is a vendor and contract decision, not something statute currently specifies substance-by-substance. Caseworkers or the court can request an expanded panel, but doing so is ad hoc and requires someone to specifically ask for it, and may cost more. Illicit drugs typically evolve faster than a fixed drug panel can keep up with.

Drugs with Legitimate Medical Use vs. Illicit Substances. For prescription opioids, benzodiazepines, amphetamine-class stimulants (e.g., ADHD medication) a positive result is not treated by the court as a violation if the parent has a valid, disclosed prescription and is taking it as directed. Caseworkers typically request medication verification rather than treating the positive as equivalent to illicit use and verify whether the dose or use pattern is consistent with the prescription and whether it impairs caregiving.

When it comes to illicit substances with no legitimate use (methamphetamine, illicitly manufactured fentanyl, or tranq/xylazine, their presence itself is problematic, since there is no legitimate explanation to rule out. Marijuana falls in between because it is legal under state law, but a positive test still gets evaluated as any other substance in a dependency case and legality doesn't exempt it from the requirements to keep a child safe.

Pharmaceutical fentanyl which is prescribed, comes in a variety of forms including patches, lozenges, IV formulations, and pills, all at standardized doses. While the risk of a child mistakenly accessing these forms of fentanyl exists, it is similar to other prescription medications in the home as opposed to illicit fentanyl which exists in a far more potent form.

Illicit fentanyl is functionally different from other street drugs for many reasons. Tranq is typically knowingly used by people seeking its specific effects and a user is generally aware they're taking it. What makes fentanyl especially risky is the involuntary and unknowing exposure. It is frequently used as an additive or substitute in counterfeit pills that are pressed to resemble Xanax, Percocet, Adderall, or oxycodone and mixed into other drug supplies such as cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin without the end user's knowledge. The federal Department of Drug Enforcement’s testing has found that roughly half of counterfeit pills seized in recent years contained a potentially lethal dose. This is why the California Department of Education’s 2022 guidance to California schools emphasized that “most of our young victims ingested fentanyl accidentally, thinking they were using something less dangerous.”^[1]

Fentanyl is roughly 50-100x more potent than morphine and heroin by weight, meaning an amount too small to see or taste can be fatal, including for a household member or child who contacts trace residue, not just someone who knowingly uses the drug. The unknowing-exposure and trace-lethality dynamics are fentanyl-specific and not true of, say, cannabis or even most prescription opioid misuse.

This bill would require parents who have a child in the dependency court and are found by the juvenile court to be at risk of fentanyl use to submit to its testing. This bill only affects what is on a urine panel administered to a parent who is already (a) in an open dependency case, and (b) already subject to a testing order or fentanyl-risk finding.

Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “This measure is intended to honor the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and to recognize the profound impact these losses have had on families and parents across communities. [This bill] addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian in dependency proceedings, the court may obtain information necessary to assess that risk through drug testing. Under current law, courts have discretion to order drug testing in cases where a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court due to abuse, neglect, or unsafe living conditions. However, existing law does not specifically address situations in which there is a concern regarding fentanyl use, despite the unique dangers posed by this highly potent synthetic opioid.

“This bill adds a new subsection to Section 362 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring a juvenile court to order testing when it finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian. The bill focuses on circumstances in which a court identifies a specific concern regarding fentanyl use and ensures that courts have access to information necessary to make informed decisions regarding child safety and family reunification. By addressing fentanyl-related risks in dependency proceedings, the bill responds to one of the most dangerous and prevalent substances contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis.

“The dangers of fentanyl must be addressed to better protect children and support families. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine, and even a minuscule amount can be fatal. It is a factor in approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths, with nearly 73,000 deaths attributed to fentanyl overdoses in 2023 alone. Tragically, fentanyl poisonings among children have risen dramatically, increasing more than 900 percent among children under age 12 between 2015 and 2023.

“[This bill] strengthens child safety during the reunification process. When a court identifies a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian, this bill ensures that the court has access to information necessary to make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of children and help prevent further loss of life.”

Equity Implications: Families of color, and Black families in particular, are disproportionately represented at every stage of California’s child welfare system, including investigation, substantiation, and removal, at rates that research attributes to systemic factors beyond differences in actual rates of abuse or neglect. Research further finds that drug-testing decisions in child welfare contexts are not applied uniformly across racial lines. Pregnant Black women are screened for drug use at approximately four times the rate of white women, even absent any prior substance-abuse report. To the extent that this bill leaves the “risk of fentanyl use” undefined, it risks amplifying these existing disparities in how substance-use allegations are identified and acted upon across different families.

Policy Considerations: The provisions of this bill require the juvenile court to order a parent to submit to fentanyl testing if the court finds a risk of fentanyl use. “Risk of fentanyl use” is not defined anywhere in the bill or in existing dependency standards. It is unclear what evidentiary showing is required for a court to make this finding, or how it differs from the general “necessary and proper” standard already governing every other order under existing law.

Should this bill move forward, the Author may wish to consider defining what constitutes being considered at risk of fentanyl use.

Additionally, the provisions of this bill are only applicable to families whose children are already dependents of the court due to neglect or abuse. This bill would not apply to a family whose case was screened out, evaluated out, or diverted to voluntary family maintenance services at the initial investigation stage, even in circumstances where suspected fentanyl or opioid use exists.

Several cases of the deaths of children in California related to fentanyl involved children who died before a dependency case existed. Child welfare policy has historically focused more on responding to harm after it occurs than on preventing it in the first place, but recent shifts have emphasized the importance of preventing families from coming into care. Expanding the reach of this bill by assessing families at the investigation stage for fentanyl exposure is in line with an increased focus on prevention. By including families who are in contact with the child welfare system but haven’t yet had their children formally removed, means more children stay safely at home, and more families get help before the situation deteriorates to the point where court involvement becomes unavoidable.

Should this bill move forward, the Author may wish to consider documenting a risk of exposure to fentanyl in the investigative phase in addition to once a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court.

This bill does not address access to harm reduction strategies or safe storage for parents who have been deemed to be at risk of fentanyl use.

Should this bill move forward, the Author may wish to consider requiring the case plan to include harm reduction information.

Proposed Committee Amendments: The Committee proposes amendments to address policy considerations stated above to do the following:

• Providing that a finding of risk of fentanyl use shall be based on evidence which may include, but not be limited to, any of the following: a prior positive test for fentanyl or opioids; or a documented licensed medical professional opinion regarding signs of fentanyl or opioid use or other behavior indicating a risk of fentanyl use.
• Require a social worker to document whether a risk or fentanyl or opioid exposure to the child was assessed when an initial investigation involves an allegation that a parent has used or is under the influence of fentanyl or other opioids to capture families before their child is a dependent of the juvenile court.
• Require, if the court finds a parent at risk of fentanyl use, that the case plan include the following:
  
• Information on the proper storage of controlled substances and prescription medications in a manner inaccessible to children, including, where appropriate, a lock box or other secure storage device.
  
• Access to fentanyl test strips and education on their use, consistent with resources available through the Naloxone Distribution Project or successor program under the California Department of Public Health.
  
• Access to naloxone and training on its administration for all adult members of the household.
  
• Referral to an in-home safety assessment to identify and remediate accessible drug paraphernalia or residue in areas of the home where the child has access.

Double referral: This bill was previously heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 16, 2026, and was approved on a 12-0 vote.

Arguments in Support: The California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals states, “. . .the bill does not expand the circumstances under which testing may be ordered; it simply ensures that when testing is already deemed necessary, it includes screening for the substance most responsible for overdose deaths in California. This is a responsible, targeted approach that strengthens the dependency system without imposing unnecessary burdens on families or providers.

Arguments in Opposition: The Drug Policy Alliance states, “The basis for ordering drug testing included in the bill, that a parent or guardian is “at risk of fentanyl use” is highly vague and subjective. It is unclear what evidence would likely be presented to establish “risk of fentanyl use,” but such vague evidentiary showings create a substantial risk of being influenced by implicit biases1 and have historically been associated with racial disparities in our court systems. Given the court's existing authority to order drug testing, there is no demonstrated need to single out fentanyl testing in statute. Doing so may create unintended consequences, including increased costs to both families and courts, while providing little to no additional benefit beyond the discretion courts already possess under current law.”

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

SB 463 (Wahab), Chapter 714, Statutes of 2023, see comments above.

AB 954 (Bryan), Chapter 552, Statutes of 2023, clarifies that a parent or guardian shall not be considered to be non-compliant with the court-ordered case plan when there is evidence that the parent or guardian is unable to pay for a court-ordered service, or when payment for a service would create an undue financial hardship to the parent or guardian.

AB 788 (Calderon), Chapter 201, Statutes of 2021, clarified the meaning of "resisted" within current provisions that enable a juvenile dependency court to deny reunification services for a parent with a history of drug or alcohol abuse.

SB 977 (Liu), Chapter, 219, Statutes of 2014, imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts, a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance use treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. Further, required courts to consider whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent in these situations.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals

Opposition

A New Path

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

California Coalition for Women Prisoners

Community Works West

Courage California

Drug Policy Alliance

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Justice2Jobs Coalition

La Defensa

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC

San Francisco Public Defender

Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition

Starting Over Strong

Starting Over, INC.

Youth Justice Coalition

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

1. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr22ltr1027.asp ↑

Date of Hearing: June 16, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1234

Author:(Alvarado-Gil) – As Amended Ver:June 8, 2026

SENATE VOTE: 36-0

SUBJECT: Dependency: fentanyl testing

SYNOPSIS

The policy of the state of California in the context of dependency proceedings is to reunify a child with their parent or guardian whenever possible while maintaining the health and safety of the minor. Existing law authorizes courts adjudicating dependency proceedings to issue any orders to the parent or guardian it deems necessary to safely effectuate that reunification, including requiring a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances. Recognizing the risk of fentanyl use, this bill aims to ensure that courts include testing requirements for fentanyl specifically for parents and guardians. Until recently, this bill would have required a court to order testing for fentanyl in every case where the court found it necessary to order testing for any other controlled substance. Understandably, this broad mandate raised concerns from various stakeholders, including the County Welfare Directors Association, that the bill was unnecessarily overbroad and would improperly require courts to mandate testing for fentanyl from parents or guardians who were at no risk of fentanyl use. In response to these concerns, the author amended the bill to instead require courts to mandate testing for fentanyl if the court found a risk of fentanyl use by the parent or guardian. While the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers remain opposed to the bill, it seems this recent amendment may address their similar concern that the bill’s original over reach may hinder reunification efforts.

This bill is supported by a number of local law enforcement agencies, the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP), and one individual. It is opposed by the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, and the County Welfare Directors Association has submitted fiscal concerns. Should this bill be approved by this Committee, it will be referred to the Assembly Committee on Human Services.

SUMMARY: Requires a juvenile court that finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl.

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 Section 300. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.)
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, and 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 that the juvenile court may, after a dispositional hearing, order that a dependent child be removed from, or remain out of, the custody of their parent or guardian if, on the basis of the evidence presented, the court determines that the child cannot safely remain in their parent’s custody. (Section 358.)
4. Requires, whenever a child is removed from a parent’s custody, that the juvenile court order the social worker to provide child welfare services and reunification services to the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. (Section 361.5 (a).)
5. Permits the juvenile court to direct any orders to the parent or guardian of a dependent child that the court deems necessary and proper to further the court’s goals, including, but not limited to, ordering the parent or guardian to participate in a counseling or education program or ordering the parent or guardian to ensure the child’s regular school attendance. (Section 362.)

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

COMMENTS: California’s child welfare system is tasked with ensuring the safety of children in the state at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The most desired outcome of the child welfare system is to keep or reunite children with their parents wherever possible. In circumstances where reunification is not appropriate, courts and social workers then look to place children in a variety of alternative placements, whether that is with a relative, an adoptive family, or with a guardian.

Dependency cases typically begin when someone makes a report of child abuse or neglect to a local child welfare agency. The report triggers a social worker with the agency to investigate the report and determine what actions are necessary to ensure the child’s safety. If the social worker determines intervention is necessary, the agency files a petition with the dependency court to make the child a dependent of the court. In the event the child is removed from their parent, an initial detention hearing must be held either on the same day the petition is filed or the next court day. At the detention hearing the court determines whether the child will continue to be separated from their parent or parents, or “detained.”

The policy of the state is to reunify a child with their parent or guardians if at all possible, and families are entitled to reunification services, subject to few exceptions, throughout the pendency of the juvenile court proceedings to effectuate that goal. (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228.) Courts also have broad discretion to make any reasonable orders to the parent or guardians they deem necessary to assist in the final adjudication of a dependency proceeding. Such orders may include counseling services, whether for substance abuse or family counseling, and testing for controlled substances. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 362.) The law is not overly prescriptive in the types of orders that can be issued in part acknowledging the immense variability in the types of circumstances families in dependency proceedings may face. As with many issues before the Legislature, dependency courts have seen firsthand the impact of the opioid crisis and fentanyl use.

According to the author:

This measure is intended to honor the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and to recognize the profound impact these losses have had on families and parents across communities. Senate Bill 1234 addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian in dependency proceedings, the court may obtain information necessary to assess that risk through drug testing. Under current law, courts have discretion to order drug testing in cases where a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court due to abuse, neglect, or unsafe living conditions. However, existing law does not specifically address situations in which there is a concern regarding fentanyl use, despite the unique dangers posed by this highly potent synthetic opioid.

This bill adds a new subsection to Section 362 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring a juvenile court to order testing when it finds a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian. The bill focuses on circumstances in which a court identifies a specific concern regarding fentanyl use and ensures that courts have access to information necessary to make informed decisions regarding child safety and family reunification. By addressing fentanyl-related risks in dependency proceedings, the bill responds to one of the most dangerous and prevalent substances contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis.

The dangers of fentanyl must be addressed to better protect children and support families. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine, and even a minuscule amount can be fatal. It is a factor in approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths, with nearly 73,000 deaths attributed to fentanyl overdoses in 2023 alone. Tragically, fentanyl poisonings among children have risen dramatically, increasing more than 900 percent among children under age 12 between 2015 and 2023.

SB 1234 strengthens child safety during the reunification process. When a court identifies a risk of fentanyl use by a parent or guardian, this bill ensures that the court has access to information necessary to make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of children and help prevent further loss of life.

This bill seeks to assist in addressing the opioid crisis as it arises in dependency courts by requiring judges, where they find a risk of fentanyl use by the parent or guardian, to order the parent or guardian to submit to testing for fentanyl. Many judges are likely to already adhere to this practice, considering the incredibly high risk of harm arising from fentanyl use. However, it is also possible that some judges determine it is unnecessary to issue such orders even when faced with evidence of potential fentanyl use. Thus, to the extent the threat of fentanyl is well-established it seems reasonable to require testing in any circumstance where there is a risk of use by the individual who would be the child’s caretaker.

As introduced, and until amended recently, this bill required courts to order testing for fentanyl in any case where a judge determined it appropriate to issue testing for any controlled substance. In effect this change to the law would have resulted in parents and guardians who may suffer from some form of substance abuse entirely unrelated to fentanyl also being subjected to fentanyl testing. The Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, who oppose the bill, raised the following concerns:

While the idea is to add fentanyl testing only in those cases where drug testing is already occurring there is a cost associated with expanding the panel of a drug test and not every recovering addict is a risk for fentanyl use. Requiring every test of an alcoholic to include testing for fentanyl is a waste of resources. Failures of obtaining the test for fentanyl or errors in the lab including the test could result in delays to reunification based on the failures to complete an unnecessary test.

Their point was well-taken, and in response the bill was recently amended to apply only in those circumstances where a judge identifies a risk of fentanyl use. This amendment would seem to assuage the concern raised by LADL about the bill’s overbreadth. To the extent LADL would oppose any mandatory testing, limiting such an obligation to circumstances involving one of the most dangerous substances seems a reasonable approach, and one to which many judges likely already adhere. Although the LADL is still opposed, it seems the most recent set of amendments may address at least some of their concerns.

While they did not assume a formal position, the County Welfare Directors Association, who represent California’s county welfare agencies, raised fiscal concerns about the bill. They point to data reflecting that nearly half of children in out-of-home care had at least one parent with a documented substance abuse concern to underly their contention that a broad expansion of testing requirements, as previously reflected in the bill, would result in substantial costs to the counties, and would “require counties to re-negotiate existing contracts and incur additional costs by adding fentanyl testing with substance use testing providers.” In order to address those cost concerns, the CWDA requested language incorporating reference to the State’s obligation to provide funding to counties for legislation that results in new costs. This language is typically included by Legislative Counsel rather than at the request of a policy committee. Additionally, as the language addresses fiscal, rather than policy, concerns, it is arguably more appropriately addressed by the fiscal committee.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is supported by a number of local law enforcement agencies, the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals (CCAPP), and one individual. In support of the measure, CCAPP submits:

SB 1234 provides a simple but critical update by requiring that fentanyl be included in any court-ordered drug testing panel. This ensures that testing reflects current realities in the illicit drug supply and supports courts, social workers, and treatment providers in making informed decisions that prioritize child safety while connecting parents to appropriate services. Importantly, the bill does not expand the circumstances under which testing may be ordered; it simply ensures that when testing is already deemed necessary, it includes screening for the substance most responsible for overdose deaths in California. This is a responsible, targeted approach that strengthens the dependency system without imposing unnecessary burdens on families or providers.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: This bill is opposed by the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. They submit:

There are limited funding and resources available in the child welfare system. The system is overloaded as it currently exists. Imposing mandatory drug tests would require substantial funding which would be pulled away from necessary services designed to safely reunify families. While the idea is to add fentanyl testing only in those cases where drug testing is already occurring there is a cost associated with expanding the panel of a drug test and not every recovering addict is a risk for fentanyl use. Requiring every test of an alcoholic to include testing for fentanyl is a waste of resources. Failures of obtaining the test for fentanyl or errors in the lab including the test could result in delays to reunification based on the failure to complete an unnecessary test.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alpine County Probation Department
Alpine County Sheriff's Office
Amador County Sheriff's Office
California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals
Leos Law SB 1234
Mariposa County Probation Department
Merced County Sheriff's Office
Mono County District Attorney
Placer County Sheriff's Office

Opposition

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, INC

Other

County Welfare Directors Association of California

Analysis Prepared by: Manuela Boucher-de la Cadena / JUD. / (916) 319-2334

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1234

Author: Alvarado-Gil (R), et al.

Amended: 4/8/26

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/14/26

AYES: Umberg, Niello, Allen, Ashby, Caballero, McNerney, Reyes, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Durazo, Valladares

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 4/20/26

AYES: Becker, Niello, Laird, Weber Pierson

NO VOTE RECORDED: Pérez

SUBJECT: Dependency: fentanyl testing

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

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 (Welf.) & Institutions (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, and 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 may, after a dispositional hearing, order that a dependent child be removed from, or remain out of, the custody of their parent or guardian^[1] if, on the basis of the evidence presented, the court determines that the child cannot safely remain in their parent’s custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 358.)
4. Requires, whenever a child is removed from a parent’s custody, that the juvenile court order the social worker to provide child welfare services and reunification services to the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(a).)
5. Establishes a number of exceptions to the requirement to provide services to a parent under 4), including, but not limited to, circumstances wherein the parent has inflicted serious physical harm or sexual abuse upon the child or a sibling; where the parent’s parental rights have already been terminated with respect to a sibling of the child, and the parent has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of that sibling; and where the parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(b).)
6. Permits the juvenile court to order direct any orders to the parent of a dependent child that the court deems necessary and proper to further the court’s goals, including, but not limited to, ordering the parent to participate in a counseling or education program or ordering the parent to ensure the child’s regular school attendance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.)

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

Comments

California’s child welfare system is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a child from their parent’s custody, the primary objective of the child welfare system is to reunify the child with their family, if doing so is consistent with the best interests of the child. To that end, in most cases a juvenile court orders reunification services—such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes or drug or alcohol treatment for the child’s parents—before making a final determination regarding parental rights. A juvenile court has broad discretion in what it can require of a parent with a child in the dependency system, including ordering the parent to submit to testing for controlled substances.

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

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

SUPPORT: (Verified 4/21/26)

Alpine County Probation Department

Alpine County Sheriff’s Office

Amador County Sheriff’s Office

California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals

Madera County Sheriff’s Office

Mariposa County Probation Department

Merced County Sheriff’s Office

Mono County District Attorney’s Office

Placer County Sheriff’s Office

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 4/21/26)

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc.

Dependency Legal Services San Diego

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Placer County Sheriff’s Office:

Fentanyl continues to be a significant driver of the opioid crisis, accounting for approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths nationwide, with nearly 73,000 deaths reported in 2023. Recent data also indicates a sharp rise in fentanyl poisonings among young children, including an increase of more than 900 percent among children under the age of 12 between 2015 and 2023. These trends underscore the growing presence of fentanyl in environments where children may be at risk.

Under current law, courts may order drug testing in dependency cases, but there is no requirement specifying which substances must be included. SB 1234 addresses this gap by ensuring fentanyl is included in testing panels when testing has already been ordered. This targeted change would improve the effectiveness of existing court-ordered testing without expanding its scope.

Including fentanyl in these cases supports more informed decision-making by courts and child welfare professionals when assessing child safety, risk, and reunification. For counties like Placer, this is an important step in strengthening our ability to protect vulnerable children and respond to evolving substance use trends in our communities.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., and Dependency Legal Services San Diego:

There is limited funding and resources available in the child welfare system. The system is overloaded as it currently exists. Imposing mandatory drug tests would require substantial funding which would be pulled away from necessary services designed to safely reunify families. While the idea is to add fentanyl testing only in those cases where drug testing is already occurring there is a cost associated with expanding the panel of a drug test and not every recovering addict is a risk for fentanyl use. Requiring every test of an alcoholic to include testing for fentanyl is a waste of resources. Failures of obtaining the test for fentanyl or errors in the lab including the test could result in delays to reunification based on the failure to complete an unnecessary test.

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

4/22/26 16:11:12

**** END ****

1. Going forward, the term “parent” includes “guardian.” ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Becker, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Subject: Dependency: fentanyl testing

SUMMARY

This bill requires in dependency cases where a court has ordered the parent or guardian to submit to drug testing, that the test panel includes testing for fentanyl.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (Welfare & Institutions Code Section [WIC] 300 et seq.)
2. States that the purpose of the juvenile court dependency system is 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. (WIC 300.2)
3. Requires the court, if at the initial hearing the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (WIC 319(e))
4. Requires a social worker, whenever the social worker has cause to believe that there was or is abuse or neglect of a child, to immediately make any investigation they deem necessary to determine whether child welfare services should be offered to the family and whether proceedings in the juvenile court should be commenced. Further requires the social worker, if they determine that it is appropriate to offer child welfare services to the family, to make a referral to those services. (WIC 328(a))
5. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents’ custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and twelve months if the child is over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (WIC 361.5(a))
6. Requires, if a child is adjudged a dependent child of the court and the court orders that a parent shall retain custody of the child subject to the supervision of the social worker, the parents to participate in child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency designated by the court. (WIC 362(c))
7. Permits the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents of the child who is the subject of any proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Permits that order to include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, a parent education and parenting program operated by a community college, school district, or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Authorizes a foster parent with whom the child is placed to be directed to participate in such a program in cases in which the court deems participation is appropriate and in the child’s best interest. Requires the program in which a parent is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by WIC 300. (WIC 362(d))

This Bill:

1. Provides that in dependency cases where the juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to testing for controlled substances, the test panel shall include testing for fentanyl.

FISCAL IMPACT

This bill has been keyed non-fiscal by Legislative Counsel.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “This measure is intended to honor the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and to recognize the profound impact these losses have had on families and parents across communities. Senate Bill 1234 addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to drug testing as a condition related to dependency proceedings, the testing panel must include fentanyl. Under current law, courts have discretion to order drug testing in cases where a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court due to abuse, neglect, or unsafe living conditions; however, there is no requirement that fentanyl be included in those tests.

“This bill adds a new subsection to Section 362 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring fentanyl testing when controlled substance testing is already ordered. Importantly, the bill does not expand when testing may occur, nor does it impose new testing requirements. It simply ensures that fentanyl, one of the most dangerous and prevalent substances contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis, is included when testing is already deemed necessary by the court.

“The dangers of fentanyl must be addressed to better protect children and support families. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine, and even a minuscule amount can be fatal. It is a factor in approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths, with nearly 73,000 deaths attributed to fentanyl overdoses in 2023 alone. Tragically, fentanyl poisonings among children have risen dramatically, increasing more than 900 percent among children under age 12 between 2015 and 2023.

“This legislation takes a straightforward step to strengthen child safety during the reunification process. When a court already requires drug testing, this bill ensures that fentanyl is included in the testing panel so that courts have the information necessary to make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of children and help prevent further loss of life.”

Child Welfare System (CWS)

The CWS is the system of intervention of child abuse and neglect. This system provides services to children who have been abused or neglected and their families. The goal of this system is to keep children in their home when it is safe, and when the child is at risk, to develop an alternative plan as quickly as possible^[1]. Social workers in each county receive reports of abuse or neglect, and work to investigate and resolve those reports. When the investigation substantiates the allegations of abuse or neglect, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s wellbeing and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed from the family and placed into foster care. In 2025, the state’s child welfare agencies received 398,861 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 45,856 reports contained substantiated allegations, and 17,886 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system.

After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services may be provided to children who are able to remain safely in their homes while the family receives “family preservation” services. If the family receives family preservation services, the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.

If a child is removed from their home, they are temporarily within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a court makes a determination. Within 48 hours of removal, the social worker must file a petition with the court requesting a detention hearing. The detention hearing is the first court date in a CWS case. This hearing must take place within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations and why the children should be removed. The court then determines if removal is in the best interest of the child. If the court makes that determination, a jurisdiction hearing must take place within 15 days.

If it is determined that a child cannot remain safely in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children and, where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.

Reunification Services

A key portion of reunification services is the case plan provided to a parent or guardian that includes the reasonable services that will be provided in an effort to reunify the parent or guardian with their child(ren). Every case plan is different and may include requirements for that parent to seek counseling, attend parent education classes, or receive substance use disorder treatment and testing services. This case plan differs based on the unique circumstances of each family. The court must also consider the particular barriers to an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with the child, and to document this information in the child’s case plan. The social worker meets with the parents at least monthly to discuss the case progress, problems encountered and the status of the parent’s cooperation. Case plans are updated every six months.

In addition to the case plan, the court has the power to make all reasonable orders for the care, maintenance, and support of a child who has been adjudicated a dependent. Such orders can include counseling, education programs, and parenting classes. The power of the court to make reasonable orders includes the ability to order the parent to take a drug test. This bill would require a test panel to include testing for fentanyl in a dependency case where a court has ordered the parent or guardian to submit to drug testing. There is nothing in the law that prohibits either the social worker or the court from requiring a parent or guardian to submit to fentanyl testing if there is suspicion of fentanyl abuse.

Oklahoma’s Leo’s Law

Oklahoma House Bill 4421^[2], currently pending in the state legislature, makes changes to when and if parents are tested for fentanyl during child welfare cases. HB 4421, or “Leo’s Law”, is named after Leo, a 3-year-old who died of fentanyl poisoning while in the care of his mother. The Oklahoma bill would, in part, do the following:

• Provides that upon receipt of a report that a child may be drug-endangered, the Department of Human Services has 24 hours to conduct a safety analysis and must attempt to acquire consent for an immediate drug screening for any parent, guardian, or caregiver if substance use is suspected including the use of methamphetamine, opioids, or any indication of fentanyl presence.
• Provides that if the parent, guardian or caregiver refuses to consent to a drug screening, the Department of Human Services must report to a district attorney within 24 hours to request a court order for the drug screening.
• Requires all drug screenings to include mandatory fentanyl testing.
• Requires drug testing at intake for investigations and removals, as part of ongoing monitoring in open cases or upon reasonable suspicion, and prior to any reunification, expansion of visitation, or case closure.
• Requires the residence into which a child would be returned to be subject to environmental assessment prior to reunification if the residence has been identified as a location where drug activity has occurred or is suspected.
• Provides that the Department of Human Services will not recommend reunification for a child in any such residence unless the premises have been certified safe for occupancy.

HB 4421 is still pending in the Oklahoma legislature. This bill is based on the Oklahoma bill, taking a narrower approach and requiring fentanyl testing as part of any drug testing ordered by the court.

Related/Prior Legislation:

AB 954 (Bryan, Chapter 552, Statutes of 2023) clarifies that a parent or guardian shall not be considered to be non-compliant with the court-ordered case plan when there is evidence that the parent or guardian is unable to pay for a court-ordered service, or when payment for a service would create an undue financial hardship to the parent or guardian.

SB 463 (Wahab, Chapter 714, Statutes of 2023) eliminates the evidentiary presumption in juvenile court that a parent or guardian’s lack of participation or progress in a treatment program endangers the child, for purposes of determining whether the child should be returned to the parent or guardian’s custody.

COMMENTS

This bill requires fentanyl testing whenever a parent is ordered to drug test. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as an analgesic and anesthetic. It is also often mixed with illicit drugs to increase their potency. Deaths from fentanyl in California have been rising in recent years. In 2020, 5,502 Californians died due to opioid overdose, and 3,946 died due to fentanyl overdose.^[3] In a December 2025 report^[4] the California Department of Public Health noted 15 California residents aged five and under died from fentanyl-related causes in 2023. It is unclear if any of these children were involved in the child welfare system at the time of their death.

Counties contract with drug testing labs to provide the drug testing required in dependency cases. Currently only some counties include fentanyl in their standard drug testing panel. Other counties include fentanyl testing when fentanyl use is suspected. In all cases, courts in all counties always have the ability to order drug tests for fentanyl as part of the reunification plan.

In a letter expressing fiscal concerns, the County Welfare Directors Association wrote in part, “Each county contracts with a testing provider, who typically also works with parents on substance abuse counseling and treatment, to regularly test for alcohol or other substances as part of that parent’s services for reunification. This testing process may include both initial screening and confirmatory testing, which are separate functions that can carry additional costs. Some counties require fentanyl be included in the panel, others will request it upon suspicion of fentanyl use, while others do not include it at all. By requiring counties to include fentanyl in all substance use testing panels, SB 1234 will require counties to re-negotiate existing contracts and incur additional costs by adding fentanyl testing with substance use testing providers.”

For those counties who do not have fentanyl testing in their standard drug testing panel, this bill will cause them to use their limited dependency funds for fentanyl testing in all cases where drug testing is ordered, even in cases when fentanyl use is not suspected. With 17,886 children removed from their families in 2025 alone, the cost of this mandatory testing should be weighed against what other services could be provided with that money and if those services would be more narrowly tailored to meet the unique needs of each family.

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION

Arguments in Support:

The Placer County Sheriff’s Office writes, “Fentanyl continues to be a significant driver of the opioid crisis, accounting for approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths nationwide, with nearly 73,000 deaths reported in 2023. Recent data also indicates a sharp rise in fentanyl poisonings among young children, including an increase of more than 900 percent among children under the age of 12 between 2015 and 2023. These trends underscore the growing presence of fentanyl in environments where children may be at risk.

“Under current law, courts may order drug testing in dependency cases, but there is no requirement specifying which substances must be included. SB 1234 addresses this gap by ensuring fentanyl is included in testing panels when testing has already been ordered. This targeted change would improve the effectiveness of existing court-ordered testing without expanding its scope.”

Arguments in Opposition:

The Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc. and Dependency Legal Servies San Diego write, “This legislation would require a drug test panel include testing for fentanyl if a juvenile court orders a parent to submit to testing for controlled substances whether or not there is any reason to suspect fentanyl use. Mandatory drug tests waste limited dollars available for child welfare and impose an unnecessary barrier to reunification…

“There is limited funding and resources available in the child welfare system. The system is overloaded as it currently exists. Imposing mandatory drug tests would require substantial funding which would be pulled away from necessary services designed to safely reunify families. While the idea is to add fentanyl testing only in those cases where drug testing is already occurring there is a cost associated with expanding the panel of a drug test and not every recovering addict is a risk for fentanyl use. Requiring every test of an alcoholic to include testing for fentanyl is a waste of resources. Failures of obtaining the test for fentanyl or errors in the lab including the test could result in delays to reunification based on the failure to complete an unnecessary test.”

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Alpine County Probation Department
Alpine County Sheriff's Office
Amador County Sheriff's Office
Mariposa County Probation Department
Mono County District Attorney
Placer County Sheriff's Office

one individual

Oppose:

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc

-- END --

1. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/child-welfare-protection/policies ↑

2. https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB4421/2026 ↑

3. https://oag.ca.gov/fentanyl ↑

4. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/sapb/CDPH%20Document%20Library/SB908CDPHReport_ Fentanyl DeathsFiveandUnder.pdf ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1234 (Author:Alvarado-Gil)

Version: April 8, 2026

Hearing Date: April 14, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Dependency: fentanyl testing

DIGEST

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California’s child welfare system is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a child from their parent’s custody, the primary objective of the child welfare system is to reunify the child with their family, if doing so is consistent with the best interests of the child. To that end, in most cases a juvenile court orders reunification services—such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes or drug or alcohol treatment for the child’s parents—before making a final determination regarding parental rights. A juvenile court has broad discretion in what it can require of a parent with a child in the dependency system, including ordering the parent to submit to testing for controlled substances.

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

This bill is sponsored by the author and is supported by the Alpine County Probation Department, the Alpine County Sheriff’s Office, the Amador County Sheriff’s Office, the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, the Madera County Sheriff’s Office, the Merced County Sheriff’s Office, the Mono County District Attorney’s Office, and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. If this Committee passes this bill, it will be re-referred to 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, and 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 may, after a dispositional hearing, order that a dependent child be removed from, or remain out of, the custody of their parent or guardian^[1] if, on the basis of the evidence presented, the court determines that the child cannot safely remain in their parent’s custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 358.)
4. Requires, whenever a child is removed from a parent’s custody, that the juvenile court order the social worker to provide child welfare services and reunification services to the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(a).)
5. Establishes a number of exceptions to the requirement to provide services to a parent under 4), including, but not limited to, circumstances wherein the parent has inflicted serious physical harm or sexual abuse upon the child or a sibling; where the parent’s parental rights have already been terminated with respect to a sibling of the child, and the parent has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of that sibling; and where the parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(b).)
6. Permits the juvenile court to order direct any orders to the parent of a dependent child that the court deems necessary and proper to further the court’s goals, including, but not limited to, ordering the parent to participate in a counseling or education program or ordering the parent to ensure the child’s regular school attendance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.)

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

This measure is intended to honor the memory of children who have tragically lost their lives due to fentanyl poisoning and to recognize the profound impact these losses have had on families and parents across communities. Senate Bill 1234 addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to drug testing as a condition related to dependency proceedings, the testing panel must include fentanyl. Under current law, courts have discretion to order drug testing in cases where a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court due to abuse, neglect, or unsafe living conditions; however, there is no requirement that fentanyl be included in those tests.

This bill adds a new subsection to Section 362 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring fentanyl testing when controlled substance testing is already ordered. Importantly, the bill does not expand when testing may occur, nor does it impose new testing requirements. It simply ensures that fentanyl, one of the most dangerous and prevalent substances contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis, is included when testing is already deemed necessary by the court.

The dangers of fentanyl must be addressed to better protect children and support families. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine, and even a minuscule amount can be fatal. It is a factor in approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths, with nearly 73,000 deaths attributed to fentanyl overdoses in 2023 alone. Tragically, fentanyl poisonings among children have risen dramatically, increasing more than 900 percent among children under age 12 between 2015 and 2023.

This legislation takes a straightforward step to strengthen child safety during the reunification process. When a court already requires drug testing, this bill ensures that fentanyl is included in the testing panel so that courts have the information necessary to make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of children and help prevent further loss of life.

2. Background on the dependency system

The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children.^[2] 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.’ ”^[3]

As explained by the California Supreme Court:

Dependency proceedings span up to four stages: jurisdiction, disposition, reunification, and permanency. At the jurisdictional stage, the juvenile court determines whether to declare a child a dependent of the court because the child is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm. At the dispositional stage, the court decides if the child can be returned to, or must be removed from, a parent’s custody. During the reunification stage, qualifying parents are offered services to address the causes that led to the loss of custody. Finally, if the child cannot be safely returned to the parent within a statutorily specified timeframe, the juvenile court proceeds to the permanency stage, where it either terminates parental rights and places the child up for adoption or it selects another permanent plan, such as placement with a guardian or in long-term foster care. Throughout the proceedings, the juvenile court is instructed to pay careful attention to the well-being of the child, the efforts of the parent, and the services provided by the state to ensure that cases proceed to this final stage only when necessary.^[4]

Reunification services are a vital component of the state’s “strong preference for maintaining the family relationship if at all possible” because they “enable [parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain custody of their dependent children.”^[5] This policy is balanced, however, by the interest in promptly resolving a dependent child’s case, so that they do not remain in familial limbo indefinitely.^[6] A dependency judge has broad authority to order a parent to take the steps it deems necessary for reunification.^[7]

3. This bill requires a juvenile court, when it orders the parent of a dependent child to undergo substance testing, to require the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl

Current law permits a juvenile court judge to order a parent of a dependent child to undergo testing for substances; judges generally make these orders when the parent’s substance use is an underlying cause for the child being removed from their custody. This bill requires, when a juvenile court judge orders a parent to undergo testing for substances, that the testing panel includes testing for fentanyl. The author believes that the possibility of overdose from fentanyl is so high that it warrants testing for fentanyl use even when the court has no specific reason to believe that the parent has used fentanyl.

4. Arguments in support

According the Placer County Sheriff’s Office:

Fentanyl continues to be a significant driver of the opioid crisis, accounting for approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths nationwide, with nearly 73,000 deaths reported in 2023. Recent data also indicates a sharp rise in fentanyl poisonings among young children, including an increase of more than 900 percent among children under the age of 12 between 2015 and 2023. These trends underscore the growing presence of fentanyl in environments where children may be at risk.

Under current law, courts may order drug testing in dependency cases, but there is no requirement specifying which substances must be included. SB 1234 addresses this gap by ensuring fentanyl is included in testing panels when testing has already been ordered. This targeted change would improve the effectiveness of existing court-ordered testing without expanding its scope.

Including fentanyl in these cases supports more informed decision-making by courts and child welfare professionals when assessing child safety, risk, and reunification. For counties like Placer, this is an important step in strengthening our ability to protect vulnerable children and respond to evolving substance use trends in our communities.

SUPPORT

Alpine County Probation Department

Alpine County Sheriff’s Office

Amador County Sheriff’s Office

California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals

Madera County Sheriff’s Office

Merced County Sheriff’s Office

Mono County District Attorney’s Office

Placer County Sheriff’s Office

One individual

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation:

SB 463 (Wahab, Ch. 714, Stats. 2023) eliminated the evidentiary presumption in juvenile court that a parent or guardian’s lack of participation or progress in a treatment program endangers the child, for purposes of determining whether the child should be returned to the parent or guardian’s custody

AB 788 (Calderon, Ch. 201, Stats. 2021) clarified the meaning of “resisted” for the purposes of existing law which permits a juvenile dependency court to deny reunification services for a parent who has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has resisted court-ordered treatment.

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

1. Going forward, the term “parent” includes “guardian.” ↑

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

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

4. Michael G. v. Superior Court of Orange County (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 (internal citations omitted). ↑

5. In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228 (internal quotation marks omitted). ↑

6. Michael G., 14 Cal.5th at p. 625. ↑

7. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362. ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 1234 (Author:Alvarado-Gil)

Version: February 19, 2026

Hearing Date: April 7, 2026

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Dependency: fentanyl testing

DIGEST

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

California’s child welfare system is responsible for ensuring the protection and safety of children at risk of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. When it is necessary for the state to remove a child from their parent’s custody, the primary objective of the child welfare system is to reunify the child with their family, if doing so is consistent with the best interests of the child. To that end, in most cases a juvenile court orders reunification services—such as counseling for the family, and parenting classes or drug or alcohol treatment for the child’s parents—before making a final determination regarding parental rights. A juvenile court has broad discretion in what it can require of a parent with a child in the dependency system, including ordering the parent to submit to testing for controlled substances.

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl. The bill is named “Leo’s Law,” after an Oklahoma child who died from exposure to fentanyl while his mother was under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

This bill is sponsored by Jacob Towe and is supported by the Alpine County Probation Department, the Alpine County Sheriff’s Office, the Amador County Sheriff’s Office, the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, the Madera County Sheriff’s Office, the Merced County Sheriff’s Office, the Mono County District Attorney’s Office, and the Placer County Sheriff’s Office. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill. If this Committee passes this bill, it will be re-referred to 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, and 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 may, after a dispositional hearing, order that a dependent child be removed from, or remain out of, the custody of their parent or guardian^[1] if, on the basis of the evidence presented, the court determines that the child cannot safely remain in their parent’s custody. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 358.)
4. Requires, whenever a child is removed from a parent’s custody, that the juvenile court order the social worker to provide child welfare services and reunification services to the child and the child’s mother and statutorily presumed father or guardians. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(a).)
5. Establishes a number of exceptions to the requirement to provide services to a parent under 4), including, but not limited to, circumstances wherein the parent has inflicted serious physical harm or sexual abuse upon the child or a sibling; where the parent’s parental rights have already been terminated with respect to a sibling of the child, and the parent has not made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that led to the removal of that sibling; and where the parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs or alcohol and has resisted prior court-ordered treatment, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5(b).)
6. Permits the juvenile court to order direct any orders to the parent of a dependent child that the court deems necessary and proper to further the court’s goals, including, but not limited to, ordering the parent to participate in a counseling or education program or ordering the parent to ensure the child’s regular school attendance. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362.)

This bill requires, whenever a juvenile court judge orders a parent or guardian of a child adjudged to be a dependent of the juvenile court to submit to testing for controlled substances, the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Leo’s Law honors the memory of three-year-old Leo Towe, who tragically lost his life due to fentanyl poisoning while in the care of one of his parents. Senate Bill 1234 addresses a critical gap in existing law by ensuring that when a juvenile court orders a parent or guardian to submit to drug testing as a condition related to dependency proceedings, the testing panel must include fentanyl. Under current law, courts have discretion to order drug testing in cases where a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court due to abuse, neglect, or unsafe living conditions. However, there is no requirement that fentanyl be included in those tests.

This bill adds a new subsection to Section 362 of the Welfare and Institutions Code requiring fentanyl testing when controlled substance testing is already ordered. Importantly, the bill does not expand when testing may occur, nor does it impose new testing requirements. It simply ensures that fentanyl, one of the most dangerous and prevalent drugs in the current opioid crisis, is included when testing is already deemed necessary by the court.

The dangers of fentanyl must be addressed for the safety of children and families. Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. An amount as small as .007% of an ounce is considered fatal. Fentanyl is a factor in approximately 69 percent of overdose deaths, and nearly 73,000 deaths occurred due to fentanyl overdoses in 2023 alone. Tragically, fentanyl poisonings among children have risen dramatically, increasing more than 900 percent among children under age 12 between 2015 and 2023.

Leo’s Law takes a straightforward step to better protect children during the reunification process. When a court already requires drug testing, this bill simply ensures that fentanyl is included in the test panel so judges have the information they need to make decisions that prioritize a child’s safety and help prevent tragedies like the one that took Leo’s life.

2. Background on the dependency system

The overarching goal of dependency proceedings is to safeguard the welfare of California’s children.^[2] 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.’ ”^[3]

As explained by the California Supreme Court:

Dependency proceedings span up to four stages: jurisdiction, disposition, reunification, and permanency. At the jurisdictional stage, the juvenile court determines whether to declare a child a dependent of the court because the child is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm. At the dispositional stage, the court decides if the child can be returned to, or must be removed from, a parent’s custody. During the reunification stage, qualifying parents are offered services to address the causes that led to the loss of custody. Finally, if the child cannot be safely returned to the parent within a statutorily specified timeframe, the juvenile court proceeds to the permanency stage, where it either terminates parental rights and places the child up for adoption or it selects another permanent plan, such as placement with a guardian or in long-term foster care. Throughout the proceedings, the juvenile court is instructed to pay careful attention to the well-being of the child, the efforts of the parent, and the services provided by the state to ensure that cases proceed to this final stage only when necessary.^[4]

Reunification services are a vital component of the state’s “strong preference for maintaining the family relationship if at all possible” because they “enable [parents] to demonstrate parental fitness and so regain custody of their dependent children.”^[5] This policy is balanced, however, by the interest in promptly resolving a dependent child’s case, so that they do not remain in familial limbo indefinitely.^[6] A dependency judge has broad authority to order a parent to take the steps it deems necessary for reunification.^[7]

3. This bill requires a juvenile court, when it orders the parent of a dependent child to undergo substance testing, to require the testing panel to include testing for fentanyl

Current law permits a juvenile court judge to order a parent of a dependent child to undergo testing for substances; judges generally make these orders when the parent’s substance use is an underlying cause for the child being removed from their custody. This bill requires, when a juvenile court judge orders a parent to undergo testing for substances, that the testing panel includes testing for fentanyl. The author and sponsor believe that the possibility of overdose from fentanyl is so high that it warrants testing for fentanyl use even when the court has no specific reason to believe that the parent has used fentanyl. The bill is entitled “Leo’s Law,” named for the son of the bill’s sponsor, who died from exposure to fentanyl from his mother who was, at the time of his death, under the supervision of the Oklahoma Department of Human Services.

4. Arguments in support

According to Jacob Towe, the bill’s sponsor:

As the sponsor for SB 1234, I am writing to respectfully express my strong support for legislative efforts that strengthen protections for children and improve accountability in cases involving fentanyl exposure and drug-related harm. I lost my 3-year-old son, Leo, to fentanyl poisoning.

California continues to face a devastating fentanyl crisis that has taken the lives of countless young people and placed vulnerable children at serious risk. Families across the nation are calling for stronger safeguards, improved enforcement tools, and clearer accountability when children are exposed to dangerous controlled substances.

This type of legislation is centered on prevention, protection, and justice. It supports stronger investigative standards, improved testing protocols in child welfare-related cases, and enhanced accountability measures to ensure preventable tragedies are addressed with urgency and seriousness.

SUPPORT

Jacob Towe (sponsor)
Alpine County Probation Department

Alpine County Sheriff’s Office

Amador County Sheriff’s Office

California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals

Madera County Sheriff’s Office

Merced County Sheriff’s Office

Mono County District Attorney’s Office

Placer County Sheriff’s Office

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation:

SB 463 (Wahab, Ch. 714, Stats. 2023) eliminated the evidentiary presumption in juvenile court that a parent or guardian’s lack of participation or progress in a treatment program endangers the child, for purposes of determining whether the child should be returned to the parent or guardian’s custody

AB 788 (Calderon, Ch. 201, Stats. 2021) clarified the meaning of “resisted” for the purposes of existing law which permits a juvenile dependency court to deny reunification services for a parent who has a history of drug or alcohol abuse and has resisted court-ordered treatment.

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

1. Going forward, the term “parent” includes “guardian.” ↑

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

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

4. Michael G. v. Superior Court of Orange County (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 (internal citations omitted). ↑

5. In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217, 1228 (internal quotation marks omitted). ↑

6. Michael G., 14 Cal.5th at p. 625. ↑

7. Welf. & Inst. Code, § 362. ↑