Existing law governs the adoption of unmarried minors. Existing law grants a court of this state with jurisdiction of adoption proceedings for minors in specified circumstances, including, among others, when the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.

This bill would expand the courts jurisdiction to include adoption proceedings for California-born minors when (1) proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents are not required to make the minor available for adoption and (2) the proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption are being brought in this state. The bill would clarify that the above provisions do not limit jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The bill would also require an adoption order issued for unmarried minors to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption.

Existing law sets forth the procedures for completing an independent adoption, including an investigation and a report by the State Department of Social Services or the delegated county adoption agency on the proposed independent adoption, as specified. For investigations involving petitioners who are residents of a state other than California, existing law requires a review of an updated and current home study report that was conducted and approved by a licensed adoption agency or other authorized resource in the state in which the petitioner resides if the standards and criteria for the home study report in the other state are substantially commensurate with the standards and criteria established in California adoption regulations.

This bill would require a petitioner to be responsible for providing any additional documentation or information necessary to complete the investigation described above if the out-of-state home study report is not substantially commensurate with California standards or is otherwise missing required information.

Existing law governs the adoption of unmarried minors. Existing law grants a court of this state with jurisdiction of adoption proceedings for minors in specified circumstances, including, among others, when the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.

This bill would expand the courts jurisdiction to include adoption proceedings for California-born minors when (1) proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents are not required to make the minor available for adoption and (2) the proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption are being brought in this state. The bill would clarify that the above provisions do not limit jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The bill would also require an adoption order issued for unmarried minors to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption.

Existing law sets forth the procedures for completing an independent adoption, including an investigation and a report by the State Department of Social Services or the delegated county adoption agency on the proposed independent adoption, as specified. For investigations involving petitioners who are residents of a state other than California, existing law requires a review of an updated and current home study report that was conducted and approved by a licensed adoption agency or other authorized resource in the state in which the petitioner resides if the standards and criteria for the home study report in the other state are substantially commensurate with the standards and criteria established in California adoption regulations.

This bill would require a petitioner to be responsible for providing any additional documentation or information necessary to complete the investigation described above if the out-of-state home study report is not substantially commensurate with California standards or is otherwise missing required information.

Existing law governs the adoption of unmarried minors. Existing law grants a court of this state with jurisdiction of adoption proceedings for minors in specified circumstances, including, among others, when the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.

This bill would expand the courts jurisdiction to include adoption proceedings for California-born minors when (1) legal proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents are not required to make the minor available for adoption and (2) the legal proceedings to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption are being brought in this state. The bill would clarify that the above provisions do not limit jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The bill would also require an adoption order issued for unmarried minors to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption.

Existing law governs the adoption of unmarried minors. Existing law grants a court of this state with jurisdiction of adoption proceedings for minors in specified circumstances, including, among others, when the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.

This bill would expand the courts jurisdiction to include adoption proceedings for California-born minors when (1) legal proceedings are not required to make the minor available for adoption and (2) the legal proceedings to make the minor available for adoption are being brought in this state. The bill would clarify that the above provisions do not limit jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The bill would also require an adoption order issued for unmarried minors to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption.

Existing law grants a court of this state with jurisdiction of adoption proceedings for minors in specified circumstances, including, among others, when the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.

This bill would expand the courts jurisdiction to include adoption proceedings for California-born minors when (1)legal proceedings are not required to make the minor available for adoption and (2)the legal proceedings to make the minor available for adoption are being brought in this state. The bill would clarify that the above provisions do not limit jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Bill No: SB 450

Author: Menjivar (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/25

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/1/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-8, 5/29/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

NO VOTE RECORDED: Limón, Niello, Reyes, Valladares

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-10, 9/10/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Adoption

SOURCE: Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers

Equality California

Our Family Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill adds clarity to California adoption laws, including (1) the necessary contents of an adoption order; (2) the petitioners’ obligation to provide information needed to complete an investigation into a proposed independent adoption; and (3) in what circumstances a state court has jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.

Assembly Amendments

clarified the bill’s jurisdictional language; added requirements relating to the content of an adoption order; and clarified that, when an out-of-state home study for an independent adoption does not satisfy California requirements, the petitioners are responsible for providing the additional documentation or information necessary to complete the independent adoption investigation.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes procedures and requirements for the adoption of an unmarried minor. (Family (Fam.) Code, div. 13, pt. 2, §§ 8600 et seq.)
2. Requires the State Department of Social Services (DSS) or a delegated county adoption agency to investigate a proposed independent adoption, as specified; if the petitioner is a resident of a state other than California, an updated and current home study report, conducted and approved by a licensed adoption agency or other authorized resource in the state in which the petitioner resides, shall be reviewed and endorsed by CDSS or delegated county agency if the standards and criteria established for a home study report in the other state are substantially commensurate with the home study standards and criteria adopted in California adoption regulations. (Fam. Code, § 8807.)
3. Provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor under 1) if any of the following applies:
   1. Immediately before commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of absence; or for a child under six months of age, lived in this state with any of those individuals from soon after birth and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   2. Immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, and specified conditions apply.
   4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.
   5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under requirements substantially in accordance with a)-d), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care. (Fam. Code, § 9210(a).)
4. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of a minor if, at the time the petition for adoption is filed, a proceeding concerning the custody or adoption of the minor is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with 2), unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of another state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for another reason. (Fam. Code, § 9210(b).)
5. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of the minor when a court of another state has issued a decree or order concerning the custody of a minor who may be the subject of a proceeding for adoption in this state, unless both of the following apply:
   1. The requirements for modifying an order of a court of another state under 1) are met, the court of another state does not have jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption, or the court of another state has declined to assume jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption; and
   2. The court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for adoption. (Fam. Code, § 9210(c).)
6. Provides that, for purposes of 3) and 4), “a court of another state” includes, in the case of an Indian child, a tribal court having and exercising jurisdiction over a custody proceeding involving the Indian child. (Fam. Code, § 9210(d).)
7. Provides that the jurisdictional requirements in 2)-5) apply to interstate adoptions if the prospective adoptive parents reside outside of California. (Fam. Code, § 9212.)
8. Establishes a streamlined procedure through which a stepparent or domestic partner may adopt their partner’s child when the child was born to the partner during the marriage and the child was born through a gestational surrogacy process brought about by one or both partners (known as “confirmatory adoption”). (Fam. Code, § 9000.)
9. Establishes the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), which sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the child’s home state and the receiving state in interstate adoption and placement proceedings for the placement of a child with an adoptive parent or parents, or in a group or treatment facility. (Fam. Code, div. 12, pt. 5, §§ 7900 et seq.)
10. Establishes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which establishes when a state court has jurisdiction over a child for purposes of determining the custody of the child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights. (Fam. Code, div. 8, pt. 3, §§ 3400 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, an adoption order for the adoption of an unmarried minor shall include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of adoption; and that a failure to include an existing parent or parents on the adoption order shall not be construed to terminate the parental rights and responsibilities otherwise maintained under existing law by an existing parent or parents.
2. Provides that, when a petitioner for adoption is located out-of-state and the home study conducted by the out-of-state resource is not substantially commensurate with California standards or is otherwise missing required information, the petitioners shall be responsible for providing any additional documentation or information necessary for DSS or the delegated agency to complete the independent adoption investigation.
3. Clarifies that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of an unmarried minor when the minor was born in this state and either of the following applies:
   1. A proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents is not required to make the minor available for adoption; or
   2. The proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption is being brought in this state.
4. Provides that 1) does not limit jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that is otherwise permitted under the ICPC.

Comments

Current law, spread out over a number of statutory regimes, establishes when California courts have jurisdiction over an interstate adoption, i.e., an adoption when not all of the parties involved are California residents. According to practitioners, however, there is a potential lack of statutory clarity over whether California has jurisdiction over certain types of adoption proceedings when the child was born in the state: (1) adoption proceedings that do not require a proceeding to make the minor available for adoption, and (2) adoption proceedings where the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state. Although, as a matter of practice, California courts routinely exercise jurisdiction over these cases, the potential statutory ambiguity could become more problematic as other states, and the federal government, grow increasingly hostile toward LGBTQ parents; if California does not have jurisdiction over these cases, it might be impossible for loving parents to complete their adoption proceedings in any other state.

This bill is intended to eliminate the potential ambiguity by clarifying that California has jurisdiction over adoption cases when the child was born in the state and there is either no need for a proceeding to make the child available for adoption or that proceeding is also being brought in the state. This bill expressly states that this clarification does not disturb existing requirements for assessing the fitness of interstate adoptions, thereby ensuring that placements will be adequately screened before they are approved by the court. This clarification should provide extra security for adoptive parents whose adoptive child was born in California. This bill also adds clarifying language relating to the necessary contents of an adoption order and the petitioners’ obligation to provide information necessary to complete an investigation into a proposed independent adoption.

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill presents “[n]o significant state costs. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable costs to the courts to schedule and conduct adoption proceedings and to update forms.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/25)

Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers (co- source)

Equality California (co-source)

Our Family Coalition (co-source)

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Alliance for TransYouth Rights

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus

CalPride

CalPride Sierras

CalPride Stanislaus
CalPride Valle Central

CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO

Courage California

Disability Rights California

GUSD Parents

Long Beach Forward

Los Angeles LGBT Center

Oasis Legal Services

Our Family Coalition

PFLAG Los Angeles

PFLAG Oakland-East Bay

PFLAG Sacramento

PFLAG San Jose/Peninsula

Rainbow Families Action Bay Area

Sacramento LGBT Community Center

San Francisco AIDS Foundation

The TransLatin@ Coalition

TransFamily Support Services

Viet Rainbow of Orange County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers:

As a practical matter, California courts have long adjudicated independent adoption cases for California-born children whose adoptive parents reside out of state, as long as these cases have been handled in accordance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Nothing in this bill would change this long-standing practice. However, there has been less certainty about whether California courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate stepparent adoptions (which don’t fall within the ICPC), where the child was born here but does not live here.

In the current political climate, where many states are considering rolling back protections offered to LGBTQ+ parents and their children, this lack of clarity has raised a concern about the potential fate of children of same sex couples whose parents may reside in states that won’t allow a second parent adoption to confirm and secure the child’s relationship with both parents. As family formation attorneys, we believe it is critically important to make California’s jurisdiction over these adoptions clear; otherwise, these children could end up in limbo, with the parent-child relationships upon which they rely for care and support put at risk. Currently, only 8 states including California offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions are essential because they provide legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies, certain costs or unnecessary legal barriers. It is in California’s interest to provide the greatest possible level of protection for California-born children.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 9/10/25, 61-10

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

Noes: Alanis, Castillo, Davies, Dixon, Ellis, Hadwick, Johnson, Macedo, Patterson, Sanchez

No Vote Recorded: Chen, DeMaio, Flora, Gallagher, Jeff Gonzalez, Hoover, Lackey, Ta, Tangipa

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

10/13/26 14:52:13

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 450

Author: Menjivar (D), et al.

Amended: 8/28/25

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/1/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 28-8, 5/29/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

NO VOTE RECORDED: Limón, Niello, Reyes, Valladares

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 50-9, 9/10/25 – Roll call vote not available

SUBJECT: Adoption

SOURCE: Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers

Equality California

Our Family Coalition

DIGEST:

This bill adds clarity to California adoption laws, including (1) the necessary contents of an adoption order; (2) the petitioners’ obligation to provide information needed to complete an investigation into a proposed independent adoption; and (3) in what circumstances a state court has jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.

Assembly Amendments

clarified the bill’s jurisdictional language; added requirements relating to the content of an adoption order; and clarified that, when an out-of-state home study for an independent adoption does not satisfy California requirements, the petitioners are responsible for providing the additional documentation or information necessary to complete the independent adoption investigation.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes procedures and requirements for the adoption of an unmarried minor. (Fam. Code, div. 13, pt. 2, §§ 8600 et seq.)
2. Requires the State Department of Social Services (DSS) or a delegated county adoption agency to investigate a proposed independent adoption, as specified; if the petitioner is a resident of a state other than California, an updated and current home study report, conducted and approved by a licensed adoption agency or other authorized resource in the state in which the petitioner resides, shall be reviewed and endorsed by CDSS or delegated county agency if the standards and criteria established for a home study report in the other state are substantially commensurate with the home study standards and criteria adopted in California adoption regulations. (Fam. Code, § 8807.)
3. Provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor under 1) if any of the following applies:
   1. Immediately before commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of absence; or for a child under six months of age, lived in this state with any of those individuals from soon after birth and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   2. Immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, and specified conditions apply.
   4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.
   5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under requirements substantially in accordance with a)-d), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care. (Fam. Code, § 9210(a).)
4. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of a minor if, at the time the petition for adoption is filed, a proceeding concerning the custody or adoption of the minor is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with 2), unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of another state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for another reason. (Fam. Code, § 9210(b).)
5. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of the minor when a court of another state has issued a decree or order concerning the custody of a minor who may be the subject of a proceeding for adoption in this state, unless both of the following apply:
   1. The requirements for modifying an order of a court of another state under 1) are met, the court of another state does not have jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption, or the court of another state has declined to assume jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption; and
   2. The court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for adoption. (Fam. Code, § 9210(c).)
6. Provides that, for purposes of 3) and 4), “a court of another state” includes, in the case of an Indian child, a tribal court having and exercising jurisdiction over a custody proceeding involving the Indian child. (Fam. Code, § 9210(d).)
7. Provides that the jurisdictional requirements in 2)-5) apply to interstate adoptions if the prospective adoptive parents reside outside of California. (Fam. Code, § 9212.)
8. Establishes a streamlined procedure through which a stepparent or domestic partner may adopt their partner’s child when the child was born to the partner during the marriage and the child was born through a gestational surrogacy process brought about by one or both partners (known as “confirmatory adoption”). (Fam. Code, § 9000.)
9. Establishes the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), which sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the child’s home state and the receiving state in interstate adoption and placement proceedings for the placement of a child with an adoptive parent or parents, or in a group or treatment facility. (Fam. Code, div. 12, pt. 5, §§ 7900 et seq.)
10. Establishes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which establishes when a state court has jurisdiction over a child for purposes of determining the custody of the child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights. (Fam. Code, div. 8, pt. 3, §§ 3400 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Provides that, notwithstanding any other law, an adoption order for the adoption of an unmarried minor shall include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and any existing parent or parents who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of adoption; and that a failure to include an existing parent or parents on the adoption order shall not be construed to terminate the parental rights and responsibilities otherwise maintained under existing law by an existing parent or parents.
2. Provides that, when a petitioner for adoption is located out-of-state and the home study conducted by the out-of-state resource is not substantially commensurate with California standards or is otherwise missing required information, the petitioners shall be responsible for providing any additional documentation or information necessary for DSS or the delegated agency to complete the independent adoption investigation.
3. Clarifies that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of an unmarried minor when the minor was born in this state and either of the following applies:
   1. A proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents is not required to make the minor available for adoption; or
   2. The proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption is being brought in this state.
4. Provides that 1) does not limit jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that is otherwise permitted under the ICPC.

Comments

Current law, spread out over a number of statutory regimes, establishes when California courts have jurisdiction over an interstate adoption, i.e., an adoption when not all of the parties involved are California residents. According to practitioners, however, there is a potential lack of statutory clarity over whether California has jurisdiction over certain types of adoption proceedings when the child was born in the state: (1) adoption proceedings that do not require a proceeding to make the minor available for adoption, and (2) adoption proceedings where the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state. Although, as a matter of practice, California courts routinely exercise jurisdiction over these cases, the potential statutory ambiguity could become more problematic as other states, and the federal government, grow increasingly hostile toward LGBTQ parents; if California does not have jurisdiction over these cases, it might be impossible for loving parents to complete their adoption proceedings in any other state.

This bill is intended to eliminate the potential ambiguity by clarifying that California has jurisdiction over adoption cases when the child was born in the state and there is either no need for a proceeding to make the child available for adoption or that proceeding is also being brought in the state. The bill expressly states that this clarification does not disturb existing requirements for assessing the fitness of interstate adoptions, thereby ensuring that placements will be adequately screened before they are approved by the court. This clarification should provide extra security for adoptive parents whose adoptive child was born in California. The bill also adds clarifying language relating to the necessary contents of an adoption order and the petitioners’ obligation to provide information necessary to complete an investigation into a proposed independent adoption.

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

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill presents “[n]o significant state costs. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable costs to the courts to schedule and conduct adoption proceedings and to update forms.”

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/8/25)

Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers (co- source)

Equality California (co-source)

Our Family Coalition (co-source)

Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club

Alliance for TransYouth Rights

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus

CalPride

CalPride Sierras

CalPride Stanislaus
CalPride Valle Central

CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO

Courage California

Disability Rights California

GUSD Parents

Long Beach Forward

Los Angeles LGBT Center

Oasis Legal Services

Our Family Coalition

PFLAG Los Angeles

PFLAG Oakland-East Bay

PFLAG Sacramento

PFLAG San Jose/Peninsula

Rainbow Families Action Bay Area

Sacramento LGBT Community Center

San Francisco AIDS Foundation

The TransLatin@ Coalition

TransFamily Support Services

Viet Rainbow of Orange County

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/8/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers:

As a practical matter, California courts have long adjudicated independent adoption cases for California-born children whose adoptive parents reside out of state, as long as these cases have been handled in accordance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Nothing in this bill would change this long-standing practice. However, there has been less certainty about whether California courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate stepparent adoptions (which don’t fall within the ICPC), where the child was born here but does not live here.

In the current political climate, where many states are considering rolling back protections offered to LGBTQ+ parents and their children, this lack of clarity has raised a concern about the potential fate of children of same sex couples whose parents may reside in states that won’t allow a second parent adoption to confirm and secure the child’s relationship with both parents. As family formation attorneys, we believe it is critically important to make California’s jurisdiction over these adoptions clear; otherwise, these children could end up in limbo, with the parent-child relationships upon which they rely for care and support put at risk. Currently, only 8 states including California offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions are essential because they provide legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies, certain costs or unnecessary legal barriers. It is in California’s interest to provide the greatest possible level of protection for California-born children.

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

9/10/25 14:41:15

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 450

Author:(Menjivar)

As Amended Ver:August 28, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over petitions for adoption of minors born in California if there is no underlying proceeding to make the minor available for adoption or, if there is such a proceeding, California has jurisdiction over it.

Major Provisions

1. Requires petitioners in an independent adoption to be responsible for providing additional documentation necessary for the department or delegated county adoption agency to complete the independent adoption investigation if the home study report is not substantially commensurate with California standards or is otherwise missing required information.
2. Clarifies that California state courts have jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor if the minor was born in this state and either of the following apply:
   1. A proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents is not required to make the minor available for adoption;
   2. The proceeding to free the minor from the custody and control of one or both parents to make the minor available for adoption is being brought in this state.
3. Requires an adoption order to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and that any existing parent who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption. Clarifies that a failure to include an existing parent or parents on the adoption order in compliance with this provision shall not be construed to terminate the parental rights and responsibilities otherwise maintained under existing law by an existing parent or parents.

COMMENTS

In 2014, AB 2344 (Ammiano), Chapter 636, Statutes of 2014 streamlined the procedure for stepparent adoptions, also referred to as confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions provide a facilitated process for a stepparent to become a minor's legal parent, and avoids extensive investigation, home study, and heightened cost requirements otherwise imposed by adoption proceedings. In 2019, AB 1373 (Patterson), Chapter 192, Statutes of 2019 clarified that the streamlined confirmatory adoption procedure was also available for children born during a marriage or domestic partnership through a gestational surrogacy process with one or both spouses or partners. While the confirmatory adoption process is available and provides potential benefit to a wide array of families, it has a particular value to the LGBTQ+ community whose members have an extensive history of families denied equal legal status and parental rights.

There are three primary statutory schemes within the Family Code that work in tandem to govern the procedures for interstate adoptions in California. Family Code Section 9210 et seq., addressing potential conflict of laws, governs proceedings for the adoption of an unmarried minor and lays out when there are sufficient ties to the state for a California court to exercise jurisdiction over the matter. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a model law that provides guidelines to address interstate custody disputes. (Family Code Section 3400 et seq.) Finally, California is a signatory to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) which regulates the adoption proceedings for minors placed for adoption by their birth parent without the involvement of a state agency such as a county welfare agency or the department of social services. The ICPC imposes heightened screening procedures and requires interstate collaboration to ensure that each proposed placement is appropriate and safe for the child. (Family Code Section 7900 et seq.)

Family Code Section 9210 explicitly grants California courts jurisdiction over adoption proceedings in specified scenarios that permits children and their adoptive parents to avail themselves of this State's adoption scheme, even if they live outside of California, so long as they fall under one or more of the categories identified. However, the statute appears silent on whether California courts have jurisdiction over interstate confirmatory adoptions or other forms of stepparent or domestic partner adoptions when the child was born in California and either no proceeding is necessary to make the child available for adoption or where California has jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights to make the child eligible for adoption.

This bill seeks to explicitly state that California courts additionally have jurisdiction in proceedings where the child is born in California and either 1) a legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption, or 2) the proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in California. Additionally, this bill requires an adoption order to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents, as well as any existing parent at the time of the adoption that will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption.

The proposal put forth by this bill does not appear to conflict with either the UCCJEA or the ICPC. The expansion of Family Code Section 9210 as proposed by the bill does not undermine the UCCJEA and does not grant California courts jurisdiction over interstate adoptions if the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights is being heard in another state, even if the child was born in California. As discussed above, the ICPC applies only to circumstances in which a birth parent opts to place their child for adoption with an adoption agency. Because the adoptions considered by this bill involve situations in which one parent remains the child's legal parent, the ICPC does not intersect with the current proposal.

According to the Author

Over the past several years, legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community have come increasingly under threat due to a wave of legislative attacks, court decisions, and executive orders. As a result, many LGBTQ+ parents are experiencing heightened legal uncertainty and fear for their families. SB 450 guarantees California remains a safe haven for the LGBTQ+ community and families by ensuring that LGBTQ+ parents in other states can access California courts to protect their parentage rights as long as their child was born in California through adoption proceedings.

Arguments in Support

This bill is sponsored by Equality California, the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL), and Our Family. It is further supported by a number of affinity organizations, LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups, and civil rights advocacy organizations. It is also supported by 19 individuals. Equality California submits the following in support of the measure:

A court-ordered adoption decree provides the most secure legal protection for LGBTQ+ families, as it holds more legal weight than a birth certificate alone. The United States Constitution mandates that all states recognize valid court judgments, ensuring that adoption decrees issued in California will be upheld nationwide. If, for whatever reason, the family chooses to relocate to another state, an adoption decree assures that the parents' legal relationship with their child will be upheld, even in states that may be less supportive of LGBTQ+ families.

Over the past several years, legal protections for LGBTQ+ families have come increasingly under threat due to a wave of legislative attacks, court decisions, and executive orders that have rolled back protections for LGBTQ+ people at both the state and federal levels. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, calling into question previous court decisions, including same-sex couples' freedom to marry established in 2015 under Obergefell v. Hodges. As a result, many LGBTQ+ parents across the country are experiencing heightened legal uncertainty and fear.

Currently, only eight states, including California, offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. This streamlined process applies in instances where the spouse or partner gives birth to the child during the marriage or domestic partnership, and exempts confirmatory adoptions from a home investigation or home study, certain costs, and an adoption hearing, unless a court specifically orders otherwise. However, under existing law, it has not been clear whether LGBTQ+ parents whose children were born in California can access this process if they do not reside in the state at the time of filing. This lack of clarity has left some families in legal limbo, unable to obtain the court-ordered protections they need.

SB 450 will amend California Family Code Section 9210 to clarify and reaffirm California's longstanding jurisdiction for adoption proceedings where the child is born in California, including confirmatory adoptions, and including in cases where the families no longer live in California or never lived in California. To avoid conflicts of laws, or litigation in multiple jurisdictions, access to California courts for this purpose will be limited to cases where there is no requirement for an involuntary termination of parental rights or the action to terminate parental rights is being brought in this state.

By reaffirming California's jurisdiction over confirmatory adoptions for children born in the state, this bill upholds California's commitment to protecting all families.

Arguments in Opposition

None on file

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no significant state costs. Judicial Council reports minor and absorbable costs to the courts to schedule and conduct adoption proceedings and to update forms.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 28-8-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Hurtado, Laird, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland

ABS, ABST OR NV: Limón, Niello, Reyes, Valladares

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-2-1

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

NO: Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Macedo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-2-3

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Nguyen, Elhawary, Aguiar-Curry, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Sanchez, Dixon

ABS, ABST OR NV: Mark González, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: August 28, 2025

CONSULTANT: Manuela Boucher / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN: 0001282

Date of Hearing: June 17, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 450

Author:(Menjivar) – As Amended Ver:June 12, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 28-8

SUBJECT: ADOPTION: STATE COURT JURISDICTION

KEY ISSUE: SHOULD THE LEGISLATURE CLARIFY THAT CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER PROCEEDINGS FOR SPECIFIED PETITIONS FOR CONFIRMATORY ADOPTIONS OF MINORS BORN IN CALIFORNIA?

SYNOPSIS

This bill seeks to clarify a potential ambiguity in existing adoption law. Existing law currently grants California courts jurisdiction over interstate adoptions in specified circumstances. However, the statute appears silent on whether California courts have jurisdiction over interstate confirmatory adoptions or other forms of stepparent or domestic partner adoptions when the child was born in California and either no proceeding is required to make the child available for adoption or where California has jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights to make the child eligible for adoption. The author and sponsors contend that courts have been exerting jurisdiction over these cases in practice, and this bill proposes to codify these jurisdictional grounds in order to avoid any potential contrary interpretation of the law.

This bill is sponsored by Equality California, the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL), and Our Family. It is further supported by a number of affinity organizations, LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups, and civil rights advocacy organizations. There is no known opposition.

SUMMARY: Clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over petitions for adoption of minors born in California if there is no underlying proceeding to make the minor available for adoption or, if there is such a proceeding, California has jurisdiction over it. Specifically, this bill:

1. Clarifies that California state courts jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor if the minor was born in this state and either of the following apply:
   1. A legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption;
   2. The legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.
2. Clarifies that nothing in Family Code Section 9210, relating to the state courts’ jurisdiction over proceedings for the adoption of minors, limits the jurisdiction that is otherwise permitted by the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.
3. Requires an adoption order to include the names of the adoptive parent or parents and that any existing parent who will maintain their parental rights after the finalization of the adoption. Clarifies that a failure to include an existing parent or parents on the adoption order in compliance with this provision shall not be construed to terminate the parental rights and responsibilities otherwise maintained under existing law by an existing parent or parents.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes procedures and requirements for the adoption of an unmarried minor. (Family Code Section 8600 et seq. All further statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.)
2. Provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor under 1) if any of the following applies:
   1. Immediately before commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of absence; or for a child under six months of age, lived in this state with any of those individuals from soon after birth and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   2. Immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, and specified conditions apply.
   4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.
   5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under requirements substantially in accordance with a)-d), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care. (Section 9210 (a).)
3. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of a minor if, at the time the petition for adoption is filed, a proceeding concerning the custody or adoption of the minor is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with 2), unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of another state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for another reason. (Section 9210 (b).)
4. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of the minor when a court of another state has issued a decree or order concerning the custody of a minor who may be the subject of a proceeding for adoption in this state, unless both of the following apply:
   1. The requirements for modifying an order of a court of another state under 1) are met, the court of another state does not have jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption, or the court of another state has declined to assume jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption; and
   2. The court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for adoption. (Section 9210 (c).)
5. Provides that, for purposes of 3) and 4), “a court of another state” includes, in the case of an Indian child, a tribal court having and exercising jurisdiction over a custody proceeding involving the Indian child. (Section 9210 (d).)
6. Provides that the jurisdictional requirements in 2)-5) apply to interstate adoptions if the prospective adoptive parents reside outside of California. (Section 9212.)
7. Establishes a streamlined procedure through which a stepparent or domestic partner may adopt their partner’s child when the child was born to the partner during the marriage and the child was born through a gestational surrogacy process brought about by one or both partners (known as “confirmatory adoption”). (Section 9000.)
8. Establishes the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), which sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the child’s home state and the receiving state in interstate adoption and placement proceedings for the placement of a child with an adoptive parent or parents, or in a group or treatment facility. (Section 7900 et seq.)
9. Establishes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which establishes when a state court has jurisdiction over a child for purposes of determining the custody of the child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights. (Section 3400 et seq.)
10. Relieves the existing parent or parents of an adopted child of their parental duties towards, and all responsibility for, the adopted child and terminates any right over the child from the time of adoption. Provides opportunity for the existing parent or parents to waive this provision if both the existing parent or parents and the prospective adoptive parent or parents sign a waiver at any time prior to the finalization of the adoption and file the waiver with the court. (Section 8617 (a) – (b).)

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

COMMENTS: In 2014, AB 2344 (Ammiano, Ch. 636, Stats 2014) streamlined the procedure for stepparent adoptions, also referred to as confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions provide a facilitated process for a stepparent to become a minor’s legal parent, and avoids extensive investigation, home study, and heightened cost requirements otherwise imposed by adoption proceedings. In 2019, AB 1373 (Patterson, Ch. 192, Stats. 2019) clarified that the streamlined confirmatory adoption procedure was also available for children born during a marriage or domestic partnership through a gestational surrogacy process with one or both spouses or partners. While the confirmatory adoption process is available and provides potential benefit to a wide array of families, it has a particular value to the LGBTQ+ community whose members have an extensive history of families denied equal legal status and parental rights.

According to the author:

Over the past several years, legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community have come increasingly under threat due to a wave of legislative attacks, court decisions, and executive orders. As a result, many LGBTQ+ parents are experiencing heightened legal uncertainty and fear for their families. SB 450 guarantees California remains a safe haven for the LGBTQ+ community and families by ensuring that LGBTQ+ parents in other states can access California courts to protect their parentage rights as long as their child was born in California through adoption proceedings.

There are three primary statutory schemes within the Family Code that work in tandem to govern the procedures for interstate adoptions in California. Section 9210 et seq., addressing potential conflict of laws, governs proceedings for the adoption of an unmarried minor and lays out when there are sufficient ties to the state for a California court to exercise jurisdiction over the matter. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is a model law that provides guidelines to address interstate custody disputes. (Family Code Section 3400 et seq.) Finally, California is a signatory to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) which regulates the adoption proceedings for minors placed for adoption by their birth parent without the involvement of a state agency such as a county welfare agency or the department of social services. The ICPC imposes heightened screening procedures and requires interstate collaboration to ensure that each proposed placement is appropriate and safe for the child. (Family Code Section 7900 et seq.)

Family Code Section 9210 explicitly grants California courts jurisdiction over adoption proceedings in the five following scenarios:

1. If the minor lived in California with a parent, guardian, prospective adoptive parent, or other person acting as a parent, for at least six consecutive months prior to the commencement of the adoption proceedings and there is substantial evidence of the minor’s present or future care in the state;
2. If the prospective adopted parent lived in California for at least six consecutive months prior to commencement of the adoption proceedings and there is substantial evidence of the minor’s present or future care in the state;
3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in California and 1) the minor and their parents, or their prospective adoptive parent, have a significant connection with the state and 2) there is substantial evidence of the minor’s present or future care in the state;
4. The minor and prospective adoptive parent are physically present in California and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because they have been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse;
5. No other state appears to have jurisdiction under similar requirements, or they have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that California is the more appropriate forum for the adoption, and there is substantial evidence of the minor’s present or future care in the state.

Therefore, even if a child or their adoptive parents live outside of California, they may still avail themselves of this State’s adoption scheme so long as they fall under one or more of the categories above. However, the statute appears silent on whether California courts have jurisdiction over interstate confirmatory adoptions or other forms of stepparent or domestic partner adoptions when the child was born in California and either no proceeding is necessary to make the child available for adoption or where California has jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights to make the child eligible for adoption.

This bill seeks to eliminate any ambiguity by explicitly stating that, in addition to the five circumstances already identified in Section 9210, California courts additionally have jurisdiction in proceedings where the child is born in California and either 1) a legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption, or 2) the proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in California.

According to the author and sponsors, California courts have been exercising jurisdiction over these cases in practice. However, as both federal policy and other state policies become increasingly antagonistic towards LGBTQ+ communities and policies that support them, there has been increasing concern that LGBTQ+ parents may lose access to processes such as confirmatory adoptions. This bill aims to erase any possible interpretation that California courts cannot hear confirmatory petitions from families who may live out of state, but where the child was born in California, and there is no underlying proceeding over which another state maintains jurisdiction.

The proposal put forth by SB 450 does not appear to conflict with either the UCCJEA or the ICPC. The expansion of Section 9210 as proposed by the bill does not undermine the UCCJEA and does not grant California courts jurisdiction over interstate adoptions if the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights is being heard in another state, even if the child was born in California. As discussed above, the ICPC applies only to circumstances in which a birth parent opts to place their child for adoption with an adoption agency. Because the adoptions considered by this bill involve situations in which one parent remains the child’s legal parent, the ICPC does not intersect with the current proposal.

Finally, existing Section 8617 provides that “the existing parent or parents of an adopted child are, from the time of adoption, relieved of all parental duties towards, and all responsibility for, the adopted child, and have no right over the child.” (Family Code Section 8617 (a).) Subdivision (b) provides an opportunity for a party to waive the termination in subdivision (a) as long as the existing parent or parents and prospective adoptive parent or parents agree. There is also no existing statutory requirement that an adoption order granted pursuant to a confirmatory adoption include the names of both parents, including the non-adoptive legal parent. Thus, there is the potential that in an attempt to establish a legal record of the parental relationship between the adoptive parent and the child, because they are technically the “existing parent,” the non-petitioning legal parent’s parental rights may be inadvertently terminated. In an attempt to foreclose this opportunity, this bill proposes new Section 8626 to require any adoption order to include the names of the adoptive parent and any existing parent who will maintain their parental rights following the adoption. By explicitly requiring both parents’ names to be included on any final order, the potential for inadvertent termination of the existing parent’s parental rights seems largely foreclosed.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is sponsored by Equality California, the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL), and Our Family. It is further supported by a number of affinity organizations, LGBTQIA+ advocacy groups, and civil rights advocacy organizations. It is also supported by 19 individuals. Equality California submits the following in support of the measure:

A court-ordered adoption decree provides the most secure legal protection for LGBTQ+ families, as it holds more legal weight than a birth certificate alone. The United States Constitution mandates that all states recognize valid court judgments, ensuring that adoption decrees issued in California will be upheld nationwide. If, for whatever reason, the family chooses to relocate to another state, an adoption decree assures that the parents' legal relationship with their child will be upheld, even in states that may be less supportive of LGBTQ+ families.

Over the past several years, legal protections for LGBTQ+ families have come increasingly under threat due to a wave of legislative attacks, court decisions, and executive orders that have rolled back protections for LGBTQ+ people at both the state and federal levels. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, calling into question previous court decisions, including same-sex couples’ freedom to marry established in 2015 under Obergefell v. Hodges. As a result, many LGBTQ+ parents across the country are experiencing heightened legal uncertainty and fear.

Currently, only eight states, including California, offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. This streamlined process applies in instances where the spouse or partner gives birth to the child during the marriage or domestic partnership, and exempts confirmatory adoptions from a home investigation or home study, certain costs, and an adoption hearing, unless a court specifically orders otherwise. However, under existing law, it has not been clear whether LGBTQ+ parents whose children were born in California can access this process if they do not reside in the state at the time of filing. This lack of clarity has left some families in legal limbo, unable to obtain the court-ordered protections they need.

SB 450 will amend California Family Code Section 9210 to clarify and reaffirm California’s longstanding jurisdiction for adoption proceedings where the child is born in California, including confirmatory adoptions, and including in cases where the families no longer live in California or never lived in California. To avoid conflicts of laws, or litigation in multiple jurisdictions, access to California courts for this purpose will be limited to cases where there is no requirement for an involuntary termination of parental rights or the action to terminate parental rights is being brought in this state.

By reaffirming California’s jurisdiction over confirmatory adoptions for children born in the state, this bill upholds California’s commitment to protecting all families.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Academy of California Adoption Lawyers (ACAL) (co-sponsor)

Equality California (co-sponsor)

Our Family Coalition (co-sponsor)
Toklas LGBT Democratic Club
Alliance for Transyouth Liberation
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-southern California
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus
California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network
Calpride
CFT- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO
Courage California
Disability Rights California
Long Beach Forward
Los Angeles LGBT Center
Oasis Legal Services
PFLAG Los Angeles
PFLAG Oakland-east Bay
PFLAG Sacramento
PFLAG San Jose/peninsula
Rainbow Families Action Bay Area
Sacramento LGBT Community Center
San Francisco Aids Foundation
The Translatin@ Coalition
Transfamily Support Services
Viet Rainbow of Orange County

19 individuals

Opposition

None on file

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

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 450

Author: Menjivar (D)

Introduced: 2/18/25

Vote: 21

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/1/25

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

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Adoption: state court jurisdiction

SOURCE: Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers

Equality California

DIGEST:

This bill clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over adoption proceedings when the minor was born in California and either (1) a legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption, or (2) the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes procedures and requirements for the adoption of an unmarried minor. (Family (Fam.) Code, div. 13, pt. 2, §§ 8600 et seq.)
2. Provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor under 1) if any of the following applies:
   1. Immediately before commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of absence; or for a child under six months of age, lived in this state with any of those individuals from soon after birth and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   2. Immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, and specified conditions apply.
   4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.
   5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under requirements substantially in accordance with a)-d), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care. (Fam. Code, § 9210(a).)
3. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of a minor if, at the time the petition for adoption is filed, a proceeding concerning the custody or adoption of the minor is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with 2), unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of another state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for another reason. (Fam. Code, § 9210(b).)
4. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of the minor when a court of another state has issued a decree or order concerning the custody of a minor who may be the subject of a proceeding for adoption in this state, unless both of the following apply:
   1. The requirements for modifying an order of a court of another state under 1) are met, the court of another state does not have jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption, or the court of another state has declined to assume jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption; and
   2. The court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for adoption. (Fam. Code, § 9210(c).)
5. Provides that, for purposes of 3) and 4), “a court of another state” includes, in the case of an Indian child, a tribal court having and exercising jurisdiction over a custody proceeding involving the Indian child. (Fam. Code, § 9210(d).)
6. Provides that the jurisdictional requirements in 2)-5) apply to interstate adoptions if the prospective adoptive parents reside outside of California. (Fam. Code, § 9212.)
7. Establishes a streamlined procedure through which a stepparent or domestic partner may adopt their partner’s child when the child was born to the partner during the marriage and the child was born through a gestational surrogacy process brought about by one or both partners (known as “confirmatory adoption”). (Fam. Code, § 9000.)
8. Establishes the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), which sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the child’s home state and the receiving state in interstate adoption and placement proceedings for the placement of a child with an adoptive parent or parents, or in a group or treatment facility. (Fam. Code, div. 12, pt. 5, §§ 7900 et seq.)
9. Establishes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which establishes when a state court has jurisdiction over a child for purposes of determining the custody of the child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights. (Fam. Code, div. 8, pt. 3, §§ 3400 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Clarifies that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of an unmarried minor when the minor was born in this state and either of the following applies:
   1. A legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption; or
   2. The legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.
2. Provides that 1) does not limit jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that is otherwise permitted under the ICPC.

Comments

Current law, spread out over a number of statutory regimes, establishes when California courts have jurisdiction over an interstate adoption, i.e., an adoption when not all of the parties involved are California residents. According to practitioners, however, there is a potential lack of statutory clarity over whether California has jurisdiction over certain types of adoption proceedings when the child was born in the state: (1) adoption proceedings that do not require a proceeding to make the minor available for adoption, and (2) adoption proceedings where the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state. Although, as a matter of practice, California courts routinely exercise jurisdiction over these cases, the potential statutory ambiguity could become more problematic as other states, and the federal government, grow increasingly hostile toward LGBTQ parents; if California does not have jurisdiction over these cases, it might be impossible for loving parents to complete their adoption proceedings in any other state.

This bill is intended to eliminate the potential ambiguity by clarifying that California has jurisdiction over adoption cases when the child was born in the state and there is either no need for a proceeding to make the child available for adoption or that proceeding is also being brought in the state. This bill expressly states that this clarification does not disturb existing requirements for assessing the fitness of interstate adoptions, thereby ensuring that placements will be adequately screened before they are approved by the court. This clarification should provide extra security for adoptive parents whose adoptive child was born in California.

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

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill’s fiscal effect is as follows:

The Judicial Council anticipates a minor and absorbable impact on court calendars to schedule and hear the specific adoption proceedings outlined in the bill. While the bill may result in some additional hearings for adoption by clarifying that the court has jurisdiction in cases where it might not have previously been clear, the cases affected are expected to be relatively few in number and should not have an impact on court workload or calendars. The bill does not create any fiscal concerns for the judicial branch.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers (co- source)

Equality California (co-source)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

California Alliance of Child and Family Services

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus

CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO

Courage California

Long Beach Forward

Oasis Legal Services

Our Family Coalition

PFLAG Los Angeles

PFLAG Oakland-East Bay

PFLAG Sacramento

Sacramento LGBT Community Center

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers:

As a practical matter, California courts have long adjudicated independent adoption cases for California-born children whose adoptive parents reside out of state, as long as these cases have been handled in accordance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Nothing in this bill would change this long-standing practice. However, there has been less certainty about whether California courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate stepparent adoptions (which don’t fall within the ICPC), where the child was born here but does not live here.

In the current political climate, where many states are considering rolling back protections offered to LGBTQ+ parents and their children, this lack of clarity has raised a concern about the potential fate of children of same sex couples whose parents may reside in states that won’t allow a second parent adoption to confirm and secure the child’s relationship with both parents. As family formation attorneys, we believe it is critically important to make California’s jurisdiction over these adoptions clear; otherwise, these children could end up in limbo, with the parent-child relationships upon which they rely for care and support put at risk. Currently, only 8 states including California offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions are essential because they provide legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies, certain costs or unnecessary legal barriers. It is in California’s interest to provide the greatest possible level of protection for California-born children.

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

5/25/25 18:02:17

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 450 (Menjivar) - Adoption: state court jurisdiction

Bill Summary:

SB 450 extends the jurisdiction of state courts to adoption proceedings when the minor was born in California and either (1) a legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption, or (2) the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.

Fiscal Impact:

The Judicial Council anticipates a minor and absorbable impact on court calendars to schedule and hear the specific adoption proceedings outlined in the bill. While the bill may result in some additional hearings for adoption by clarifying that the court has jurisdiction in cases where it might not have previously been clear, the cases affected are expected to be relatively few in number and should not have an impact on court workload or calendars. The bill does not create any fiscal concerns for the judicial branch. (See staff comments)

Background:

Under existing law, several statutory regimes govern when, and how, an interstate adoption proceeding may proceed in this state. When a child born and residing in California is adopted by a parent or parents residing in California, California state courts have jurisdiction over the matter, and California law governs how the placement will be investigated to ensure that the child is being placed in a suitable home.

However, when the child and the potential parent(s) are from different states, questions arise. Family Code section 9210 governs when a California state court may exercise jurisdiction over an interstate adoption proceeding. Section 9210 provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction if: (1) immediately before commencement of the proceeding the minor lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, as specified; (2) immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, as specified; (3) the agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, as specified; (4) the minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency as specified; or (5) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiction, or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, as specified.

California courts have long adjudicated adoption cases for California-born children whose adoptive parents reside out of state, in accordance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).^[1] However, there has been less certainty about whether California courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate stepparent adoptions, as these matters are outside of the ICPC purview.

According to the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus “it has not been clear that LGBTQ+ parents whose children were born in California are able to avail themselves of the state’s streamlined confirmatory adoption^[2] process if they are not residents of California at the time of filing, either because they moved to another state before establishing their parentage rights in court or because they did not actually live here when their child was born.”

Proposed Law:

This bill expands existing state court jurisdiction over an interstate adoption proceeding to include a minor born in this state, if either of the following apply:

• A legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption; or,
• The legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.

Staff Comments: As explained above, the Judicial Council anticipates a minor and absorbable impact on court calendars. However, expanding jurisdiction over adoption proceedings specified in bill could result in cost pressures to the state funded trial court system. It is unclear how many proceedings would actually be commenced that otherwise would not have as a result of this bill. The fiscal impact of this bill to the courts will depend on many unknown factors, including the number or proceedings and the factors unique to each case. An eight-hour court day costs approximately $10,500 in staff in workload. If only 40 hours ae spent adjudicating the adoption proceedings specified in bill, this bill would surpass the threshold for Suspense.

The Governor’s 2025-26 budget proposes a $40 million ongoing increase in discretionary funding from the General Fund to help pay for increased trial court operation costs beginning in 2025-26. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources and to increase the amount appropriated to backfill for trial court operations.

-- END --

1. The ICPC sets forth requirements for the child’s home state and the state where the child will be placed to confirm that the adoptive placement is suitable for the child. California is a signatory to the ICPC. (Fam. Code, §§ 7900 et seq.)
   ↑

2. A confirmatory adoption is a streamlined process established by law to confirm a parent’s existing legal relationship to a child. Through a confirmatory adoption, a stepparent or domestic partner may file a court petition become the child's other legal parent. (Fam. Code, § 9000.) ↑

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 450 (Author:Menjivar)

Version: February 18, 2025

Hearing Date: April 1, 2025

Fiscal: No

Urgency: No

Consultant: AWM

SUBJECT

Adoption: state court jurisdiction

DIGEST

This bill clarifies that California courts have jurisdiction over adoption proceedings when the minor was born in California and either (1) a legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption, or (2) the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current law, spread out over a number of statutory regimes, establishes when California courts have jurisdiction over an interstate adoption, i.e., an adoption when not all of the parties involved are California residents. According to practitioners, however, there is a potential lack of statutory clarity over whether California has jurisdiction over certain types of adoption proceedings when the child was born in the state: (1) adoption proceedings that do not require a proceeding to make the minor available for adoption, and (2) adoption proceedings where the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state. Although, as a matter of practice, California courts routinely exercise jurisdiction over these cases, the potential statutory ambiguity could become more problematic as other states, and the federal government, grow increasingly hostile toward LGBTQ parents; if California does not have jurisdiction over these cases, it might be impossible for loving parents to complete their adoption proceedings in any other state.

This bill is intended to eliminate the potential ambiguity by clarifying that California has jurisdiction over adoption cases when the child was born in the state and there is either no need for a proceeding to make the child available for adoption or that proceeding is also being brought in the state. The bill expressly states that this clarification does not disturb existing requirements for assessing the fitness of interstate adoptions, thereby ensuring that placements will be adequately screened before they are approved by the court. This clarification should provide extra security for adoptive parents whose adoptive child was born in California.

This bill is sponsored by the Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers and Equality California, and is supported by Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California, the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus, Courage California, Long Beach Forward, Oasis Legal Services, PFLAG Los Angeles, PFLAG Oakland-East Bay, and PFLAG Sacramento. The Committee has not received timely opposition to this bill.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Establishes procedures and requirements for the adoption of an unmarried minor. (Fam. Code, div. 13, pt. 2, §§ 8600 et seq.)
2. Provides that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of a minor under 1) if any of the following applies:
   1. Immediately before commencement of the proceeding, the minor lived in this state with a parent, a guardian, a prospective adoptive parent, or another person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of absence; or for a child under six months of age, lived in this state with any of those individuals from soon after birth and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   2. Immediately before the commencement of the proceeding, the prospective adoptive parent lived in this state for at least six consecutive months, excluding periods of temporary absence, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care.
   3. The agency that placed the minor for adoption is located in this state, and specified conditions apply.
   4. The minor and the prospective adoptive parent are physically present in this state and the minor has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the minor because the minor has been subjected to, or threatened with, mistreatment or abuse or is otherwise neglected.
   5. It appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under requirements substantially in accordance with a)-d), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum to hear a petition for adoption of the minor, and there is available in this state substantial evidence concerning the minor’s present or future care. (Fam. Code, § 9210(a).)
3. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of a minor if, at the time the petition for adoption is filed, a proceeding concerning the custody or adoption of the minor is pending in a court of another state exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with 2), unless the proceeding is stayed by the court of another state because this state is a more appropriate forum or for another reason. (Fam. Code, § 9210(b).)
4. Provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption of the minor when a court of another state has issued a decree or order concerning the custody of a minor who may be the subject of a proceeding for adoption in this state, unless both of the following apply:
   1. The requirements for modifying an order of a court of another state under 1) are met, the court of another state does not have jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption, or the court of another state has declined to assume jurisdiction over a proceeding for adoption; and
   2. The court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for adoption. (Fam. Code, § 9210(c).)
5. Provides that, for purposes of 3) and 4), “a court of another state” includes, in the case of an Indian child, a tribal court having and exercising jurisdiction over a custody proceeding involving the Indian child. (Fam. Code, § 9210(d).)
6. Provides that the jurisdictional requirements in 2)-5) apply to interstate adoptions if the prospective adoptive parents reside outside of California. (Fam. Code, § 9212.)
7. Establishes a streamlined procedure through which a stepparent or domestic partner may adopt their partner’s child when the child was born to the partner during the marriage and the child was born through a gestational surrogacy process brought about by one or both partners (known as “confirmatory adoption”). (Fam. Code, § 9000.)
8. Establishes the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), which sets forth the procedures that must be followed by the child’s home state and the receiving state in interstate adoption and placement proceedings for the placement of a child with an adoptive parent or parents, or in a group or treatment facility. (Fam. Code, div. 12, pt. 5, §§ 7900 et seq.)
9. Establishes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which establishes when a state court has jurisdiction over a child for purposes of determining the custody of the child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights. (Fam. Code, div. 8, pt. 3, §§ 3400 et seq.)

This bill:

1. Clarifies that a court of this state has jurisdiction over a proceeding for the adoption of an unmarried minor when the minor was born in this state and either of the following applies:
   1. A legal proceeding is not required to make the minor available for adoption; or
   2. The legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption is being brought in this state.
2. Provides that 1) does not limit jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding that is otherwise permitted under the ICPC.

COMMENTS

1. Author’s comment

According to the author:

Over the past several years, legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community have come increasingly under threat due to a wave of legislative attacks, court decisions, and executive orders. As a result, many LGBTQ+ parents are experiencing heightened legal uncertainty and fear for their families. SB 450 guarantees California remains a safe haven for the LGBTQ+ community and families by ensuring that LGBTQ+ parents in other states can access California courts to protect their parentage rights as long as their child was born in California through adoption proceedings.

2. Several statutory regimes govern when, and how, an interstate adoption proceeding may proceed in this state

When a child born and residing in California is adopted by a parent or parents residing in California, the jurisdictional question is straightforward: California state courts have jurisdiction over the matter, and California law governs how the placement will be investigated to ensure that the child is being placed in a suitable home. When the child and the potential parent(s) are from different states, however, jurisdictional matters become significantly more complicated. The statutes below govern when a California state court may exercise jurisdiction over an interstate adoption proceeding, as well as the state’s obligations for investigating the potential placement.

Family Code section 9210 (Section 9210) sets forth the circumstances in which a court of this state has jurisdiction over the proceeding for an adoption of an unmarried minor. Section 9210’s list of circumstances is intended to ensure that California courts have jurisdiction over adoption matters that are sufficiently related to this state, and to avoid conflicting adoption matters arising in multiple states.^[1] Section 9210 also requires California courts to exercise, or forbear exercising, jurisdiction in matters where a tribal court may have jurisdiction, under the same principles.^[2]

California is also a signatory to the ICPC, which governs interstate placement of children in private adoptions, i.e., adoptions where the parent decides to place a child for adoption without the involvement of a county welfare agency or state department of social services.^[3] The ICPC sets forth requirements for the child’s home state and the state where the child will be placed to confirm that the adoptive placement is suitable for the child—essentially, ICPC prevents children from being trafficked through the adoption system.^[4] The ICPC does not apply to stepparent adoptions, because the child in that case is remaining with one of their original parents.

Finally, the UCCJEA, which governs child custody proceedings with interstate implications, ^[5] affects California’s jurisdiction over proceedings to terminate parental rights, which may be a necessary prerequisite to an adoption. The UCCJEA establishes rules for when a state court, and which state’s court, may exercise jurisdiction over proceedings relating to the legal or physical custody of a child, including a proceeding to terminate parental rights.^[6] The UCCJEA expressly does not extend to adoption proceedings;^[7] however, when an adoption requires the termination of parental rights before an adoption can proceed, the UCCJEA dictates whether a California court, or the court of another state, has jurisdiction over the initial termination proceeding.

3. This bill clarifies the circumstances under which a California state court has jurisdiction over certain types of interstate adoption proceedings

According to practitioners, Section 9210 is not entirely clear with respect to a few types of interstate adoptions: confirmatory adoptions and other stepparent or domestic partner adoptions when the child was born in California; and some interstate adoptions when California has jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights. Practitioners report that California courts have exercised jurisdiction over these types of proceedings for decades despite the potential lack of clarity. This bill is therefore intended to clarify that, under Section 9210, a state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding for the adoption of an unmarried minor when (1) the minor was born in this state, and (2) either a legal proceeding is not necessary to make the minor available for adoption, or the legal proceeding to make the child available for adoption was brought in this state. With this clarification, California courts will be able to continue exercising jurisdiction over, e.g., the confirmatory adoption proceeding for a wife whose spouse gave birth in California to a child born through assisted reproduction.

This bill does not affect the application of the ICPC to interstate adoption proceedings in state court, so all private interstate adoptions currently subject to the ICPC will still go through the same safety screens and investigations. The bill also does not interfere with the application of the UCCJEA, and does not extend jurisdiction over interstate adoptions when the child was born in this state but the underlying proceeding to terminate parental rights is proceeding in the court of another state.

As explained by the Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers, one of the bill’s sponsors:

As a practical matter, California courts have long adjudicated independent adoption cases for California-born children whose adoptive parents reside out of state, as long as these cases have been handled in accordance with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). Nothing in this bill would change this long-standing practice. However, there has been less certainty about whether California courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate stepparent adoptions (which don’t fall within the ICPC), where the child was born here but does not live here.

In the current political climate, where many states are considering rolling back protections offered to LGBTQ+ parents and their children, this lack of clarity has raised a concern about the potential fate of children of same sex couples whose parents may reside in states that won’t allow a second parent adoption to confirm and secure the child’s relationship with both parents. As family formation attorneys, we believe it is critically important to make California’s jurisdiction over these adoptions clear; otherwise, these children could end up in limbo, with the parent-child relationships upon which they rely for care and support put at risk. Currently, only 8 states including California offer streamlined confirmatory adoptions. These adoptions are essential because they provide legal recognition of parentage without requiring home studies, certain costs or unnecessary legal barriers. It is in California’s interest to provide the greatest possible level of protection for California-born children.

SUPPORT

Academy of California Adoption-Assisted Reproduction Technology Lawyers (co- sponsor)

Equality California (co-sponsor)

Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California

California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus

Courage California

Long Beach Forward

Oasis Legal Services

PFLAG Los Angeles

PFLAG Oakland-East Bay

PFLAG Sacramento

OPPOSITION

None received

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending legislation: None known.

Prior legislation: None known.

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

1. See Fam. Code, § 9210(a)-(c). ↑

2. Id., § 9210(d). ↑

3. Id., div. 12, pt. 5, §§ 7900 et seq. ↑

4. See id., § 7901. ↑

5. Id., div. 8, pt. 3, §§ 3400 et seq. ↑

6. Id., §§ 3402(d), 3421. ↑

7. Id., § 3403. ↑