Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Well, good morning, everyone's. Good morning, and welcome to the Judiciary Committee meeting. AB 920, Brian, AB 119 Wicks and AB 132 Lackey have been pulled from the hearing. We have long agenda today, including several items that may be a little more controversial. We'll see. Hopefully not. So we'll need to be efficient with our time. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses up to two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to a Bill.

Additional witnesses should state their name and organization only. This allows all authors a fair chance to present their bills and all Members of the public an equal chance to have their position reflected in the record as we proceed. I just want to make sure everyone understands our Committee rules to ensure that we maintain order and to run both a fair and efficient hearing in order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence, including veiled threats. Rules of conduct by Members of the public include no talking or loud noises from the audience. Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must be limited to your name, organization, and support or opposition of the Bill.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. Please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement proceedings. So with that out of the way, we will go ahead and get started. First, we have a quorum. We will start with item number one, AB 67. Mr. Maritsuchi, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members of the Judiciary Committee. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 67, which proposes a homeless court pilot program to be administered by the State Judicial Council. This is a proposal to get smart on fighting homelessness.

It's proposing to use criminal courts not to criminalize homelessness, but to provide wraparound services, essentially a diversion court, to get smart on addressing homelessness by providing programs such as housing support, mental health support, substance abuse support, to try to address the root causes of many of the low level criminal offenses that too many of our unhoused individuals end up in criminal court for. This is a program that has been successful in San Diego County as well as in the City of Redondo Beach.

It is a program that is part of the Chief Justice's 2020 Working Group on Homelessness's list of recommendations, a program that, subject to appropriation, would provide a grant program to promote and support more successful homeless court programs. With me today to testify on behalf of the bill are Michael Webb, the Redondo Beach City Attorney, the city prosecutor, as well as Thomas Moore, the Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, which I would like to know for the record. It's my understanding that they haven't come officially in support of the bill yet, but Mr. Moore is here to testify and to answer any questions.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to speak for you today. My name is Mike Webb. I'm the Elected City Attorney for the City of Redondo Beach. And our homeless court is an effort to get people who are chronically homeless and often have been in and out of the criminal justice system for decades. What's different about our homeless court is we bring it to the community where the unhoused individuals are, and as such, we have much greater attendance.

Typically, individuals who are unhoused don't make it to the courtroom, and we have a 79% attendance rate in our much less threatening, much less intimidating homeless court. The goal is to remove all the obstacles that prevent someone from becoming housed by bringing all the resources from DMV to additional mental health counseling, additional drug counseling. All there, and it's working.

I spoke before this Committee last year on a similar bill, and what we didn't have, because it just started in September of 2020, was demonstrable proof that it was working. The homeless count, based on the point in time, is still increasing at a slower rate in Los Angeles County. In our service provider area, spot eight, it went up 17.4%. We decreased the amount of homeless by 44% in the point in time count, and it's at the lowest rate since nearly a decade.

2013 was the last time we had a lower homeless record. I will say, having been a prosecutor for 35 years, this is the one time where everybody's interests are aligned. The defense, the prosecution, the defendant, and the community. We all want to see the unhoused individuals get permanently housed. Thank you.

Perfect. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Assembly Members. It's an honor to be here. From the County of Los Angeles in support of AB 67. I want to begin by underscoring something that's become very apparent, and that's that there's a strong causal relationship between housing insecurity and public safety. And AB 67 addresses those issues at two ends.

By minimizing system impact, by creating a pre plea diversion program, and by offering a chance to expunge records clearing efforts, records relief that can help people get access to housing and services that they need to get IDs, to get employment, to get jobs, and even student loans. And so this is an important program for us. When I first came to Redondo Beach and met City Attorney Mike Webb, we're people that obviously come from different sides.

We're adversaries in the court system, but in this aspect, where we're on the same side, and when you come to the court, the outdoor court in Redondo, you see that it is a real court, but it has the atmosphere of a resource fair because we're all there on the same side to enhance the services that we can provide there.

And I want to tell you a quick story about a woman named Michelle, and she came to us, had been living behind a dumpster for eight years in Redondo Beach. She came to the homeless court with five open convictions, and she began working together with the team. Everybody worked together to bring Michelle inside safe, because women often come to us through a very different pathway. Sometimes the victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse coming inside has a different sense of importance and urgency.

And so Michelle had a disability. It took her a long time to get her license, which was a real barrier to getting housing. She was adopted and didn't know what state she came from. And when she got her ID, she was finally brought inside. She now has two years of recovery from meth addiction, and she lives inside permanent housing with the help of the Redondo Beach homeless court. So it's an honor to be here and support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization only, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Kathleen Domingo with the California Catholic Conference.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. Mr. Muratsuchi, this went to Public Safety before it came here, correct?

That is correct.

And it passed, I think on a bipartisan vote there.

That is correct.

But the bill's been changed between Public Safety and here. My understanding is initially this would just cover misdemeanors, and now, at the request of District Attorney George Gascon, that felonies are now covered. Is that correct?

That is correct. And if I may, Mr. Essayli, as a fellow former prosecutor, I'd like to explain the rationale. The County of Los Angeles appears now officially in support of the bill. They expressed to my office that oftentimes the homeless are facing low level, non serious, nonviolent, non sex offense felonies that would benefit from these type of wraparound services to try to try to address the root causes of their crimes.

And so we made sure that we limited it to the non serious, non violent, non sexual offenses and only at the discretion of the prosecuting agencies. So, for example, I would suspect the Riverside County District Attorney's Office would have a very different approach than the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in terms of their approval of the use. This is providing a tool, but not a mandate on prosecuting agencies.

I appreciate that. The problem is the list of what's considered non serious, nonviolent. I mean, rape of an unconscious person is considered non serious and nonviolent, yet rape of an unconscious person is non serious, nonviolent, felony domestic violence is non serious, nonviolent. So there are really serious crimes that are considered technically non serious and nonviolent. And I appreciate the intent. I mean, I think we all want to help homeless people find a path out of there, but we have to balance public safety as well.

And I think that's my challenge. I have a question. What happens when they don't show up to homeless court? Will there be any consequences if they're in a program and they stop participating? What will happen?

Well, I can speak to it in Redondo. What happens if they don't show up, eventually a warrant is issued, or if they stop participating, they stop making efforts to become unhoused, then they're returned to traditional court. So this is a voluntary program that if they don't want to participate, then they return to traditional prosecution, in our case, the Superior Court.

And they'll be held on that warrant until they go back to court or will be they released? Because the problem is they get arrested. They get a warrant, they get arrested, they go back on the street, and there's no really any teeth there on the ground.

That has nothing to do with this bill, because they're in the same position. They're at the same position as any other person. If homeless court didn't exist, they'll be held on bail or not held on bail under the same standard as anyone else charged with a crime. I understand the problem you're identifying, but this doesn't have anything to do with that.

All right. To the author, just if you're willing to remove the felonies or maybe focus on wobblers, I think that's something that we could become supportive of. But I just think a blanket exemption or blanket allowance for all non serious felonies makes it difficult for me to support it.

Thank you, Mr. Essayli, I appreciate your concerns. To be honest, I originally resisted including any felonies. Perhaps Mr. Moore with the County Public Defender's Office can address some of the specific concerns that you raised.

Thank you. I did want to address the concern that you raised about the circumstance if somebody's convicted or charged with rape of an unconscious person, there is an exclusion in these courts and in this language in the bill for anybody that's required to register under 290, which is registration as a sex offender.

So it's my understanding that rape of an unconscious person would also be excluded for that reason, independently of not falling into the particularized category of a serious or a violent felony, and also just to point out that it is a tool. These are collaborative courts. So if there's no agreement with the DA, the prosecution and the court, that precludes entry into the court system for those reasons, too.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for presenting this bill to us. I want to ask, is this voluntary? So if somebody comes into court, are they told, you, have to do this, or they volunteer to do it?

In Redondo, it's entirely voluntary. It's a pre plea situation. And we thought long and hard about that as a prosecutor. Our traditional thinking would be different, but we realized you can't threaten someone into seeking the services they need to obtain permanent housing. So it is an entirely voluntary program, and they're in no different position if they say no or they fall out of the program than they would be if this program didn't exist.

But the people that want to find permanent housing, we do everything humanly possible through this program to help them overcome the barriers to them getting housing. And it works.

Wonderful. And the only caveat, I'll be supporting this. But the Disability Rights California, the unintended consequences that they talk about, I think, are real. And I'm sure that, Mr. Muratsuchi, it is something that you will be looking.

Yes. And if I can add to Mr. Webb's comment, Ms. Reyes, first of all, I respect the Disability Rights California's concern about how this might be a step toward criminalizing homelessness. But in fact, for example, the California Public Defender's Office is in support of this bill, saying that this is a step toward decriminalizing homelessness.

And again, to emphasize Mr. Webb's point, this is, as you heard, only through the consensus of the prosecuting agency and the criminal defense attorneys will this, as well as, of course, the defendant and, in fact, the Committee analysis specifically highlights the point that unlike some other proposals, this proposal does not infringe upon anyone's constitutional rights.

Thank you.

Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify on. I'm supportive of this if there is that clarification on the felonies, because that's a big concern to me. I come out of local government and we've been dealing with homeless and we don't want to criminalize the homeless, but there are serious felonies that are sometimes committed. I just want to be sure that we're not excusing serious felonies. So can we work together afterwards just to follow up on Mr. Essayli's point?

Ms. Dixon, again, I appreciate your concern. As a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, I certainly don't want to see any kind of serious felonies being diverted out. I want to see serious violent sex offenders locked up. And I don't want this to be used as a loophole to not pursue appropriate public safety measures. But I want to emphasize again, this is only at the discretion.

If the prosecutor in Orange County has any concerns about this approach being used for felony cases where it would not be appropriate in the interests of public safety, they can reject this approach. But certainly, whether with you or Mr. Essayli, I will welcome continued discussion on this bill.

Very good. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Muratsuchi, thank you for bringing this bill. I would reiterate, as somebody who spent a significant portion of my career working with the homeless, as the San Diego County Commission on Homelessness, and we worked particularly with the chronic population, the mentally ill. And you're right, we did this in San Diego County, and it has been successful. But the key is, one of the keys is it has to be collaborative and it has to be voluntary.

So you have the DA, you have the city attorney, you have the public defender actually working side by side to resolve a problem. It removes the adversarial nature of that, and that's how you start to reduce the criminalization of homelessness. But you also make sure that some of the same people aren't continually going through, again and again 15, 16, 17, 18 times. And that's important. So with all of that, I think this is an effective tool in the toolbox. I appreciate the collaborative nature of it.

It should be noted, obviously, that it has to be agreed upon. So with these serious crimes, with sex offenses in particular, that won't come into play here. So with that, pleased to support the bill, and we have a motion from Mr. Haney, second from Ms. Reyes. Any closing, Mr. Muratsuchi?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We have a motion a second. Ask Clerk to call a roll.

Do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Motion passes. Do I have a motion on the consent calendar? Ms. Reyes moves. Mr. Connolly seconds. The consent calendar includes AB 288, Maienschein, AB 690 Chen, AB 875 Gabriel, AB 959 McCarty, AB 1740 Sanchez. Ask Clerk to call roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent agenda passes. Mr. Rodriguez, you're up. AB 70 emergency response and trauma kits. You may open, Mr. Rodriguez. Go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 70, which would require certain public and private buildings that undergo renovations or modifications with costs that exceed 100,000 to install and maintain six trauma kits on their premises in order to treat people in need of a medical emergency care during a traumatic emergency event. This Bill is an expansion of AB 2260 from last year, which required the placement of trauma kits in similar new construction buildings.

In response to the tragic mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a group of doctors convened a panel of national experts from law enforcement and emergency medical services to create an improved response system directed primarily at the control of life-threatening blood loss. In their recommendations, the group of experts concluded that bystanders immediate responders should be trained and empowered to stop hemorrhage in order to save lives.

These experts also recommended trauma kits be placed in public places such as shopping malls, schools, sport venues, transportation centers, et cetera, next to AEDs. Recognizing the difficulty to maintain direct pressure, they also recommended the use of tourniquets to control severe bleeding, with mass casualty events becoming more common. AB 2015 in 2015, President Obama launched the stop the Bleed campaign to encourage bystanders to become trained and empowered to take life saving action while EMS personnel are en route.

During these tragic events, a person suffering from severe blood loss can die within five minutes, so every second counts. That is why it's so important to ensure our immediate responders have the instructions and equipment needed to save and render emergency care at the scene of an emergency.

With me to provide testimony are Yarley Malagon, who is a Legislative Director or advocate on behalf of the American Red Cross, and Dr. Sigrid Burruss, who is a trauma surgeon and associate professor of surgery and trauma division at Loma Linda University. On behalf of the American College of Surgeons and the California Chapters of the American College of Surgeons.

Thank you.

First witness good morning.

Thank you to the Chair and the Committee for the privilege of addressing you. I am Dr. Sigrid Burruss a double board-certified trauma surgeon and surgical intensivist at Loma Linda University Medical Center. Loma Linda is an American college of Surgeons verified level one trauma center. I see patients bleeding on a daily basis and some of them do not survive having lost too much blood in the field. We know that uncontrolled bleeding is the leading cause of preventable deaths, with about 45,000 individuals dying every year.

Recently, a worker sustained a partial amputation of his upper extremity. Luckily, a bystander applied a commercial cat tourniquet and was able to stop the bleeding. That bought him enough time to get to the hospital. It takes only a few minutes to bleed out, much faster than the average eight minutes that it takes an ambulance to arrive. It is because of that bystander with access to a tourniquet that this patient survived. Bleeding control kits out in the community will save lives.

These kits contain packing supplies and tourniquets meant to control bleeding in the field. This gives patients the much needed time to get to the hospital and live. We have excellent data showing the benefits of access to bleeding control kits. LA County shows utilization of tourniquets decrease the inhospital deaths from 9% to 1% when tourniquets are implemented in the field. In addition, a recent peer reviewed article showed that 95% of families want their junior and high school students to learn stop the bleed, including tourniquet placement.

This then requires access to bleeding control kits to help save a life. We do not know if or when we will need a bleeding control kit. California led the way with AB 2260 to place bleeding control kits in newly constructed buildings, and we thank you for everyone's support. Let us lead the way to continue to improve access to bleeding controlled kits to your community members, I urge you to vote yes on AB 70. Our patients and our community deserve and need this to save lives and to stop the bleed. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'll keep my comments brief this morning. My name is Yarelie Magallon with political solutions here this morning on behalf of American Red Cross, a proud co-sponsor and supporter of AB 70, the American Red Cross is supportive of this proposed legislation as it increases the availability of trauma kits allowing for emergency medical care in the case of traumatic events. As we all know, accidents, natural disasters and shootings happen without warning.

Emergency situations like these rely on average citizens to turn into first responders in an instant when every second counts. Increased public access to life saving tools included in a trauma kit will save lives. In closing, I just want to take a second to applaud the Assembly Member and his leadership in this space. Thank you very much for your time and we ask for your support today on AB 70. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion from Ms. Reyes. Second for Mr. Haney. Mr. Rodriguez, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote to help me save lives.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to approach I ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Next in file order. Ms. Addis, we don't. Welcome Ms. Addis, you may open.

Thank you. Thank you, Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee. And I also want to thank our two witnesses for bravely joining us this morning. The survivors who shared their experience with me, as well as this Committee's staff and my own for their hard work on this Bill. I am here with you to present AB 452, the justice for survivors of Sexual Assault Act that will lift the statute of limitations on childhood sexual assault cases.

Doing so will provide survivors of sexual assault the critical opportunity to seek justice and healing, no matter their age, and create greater accountability for perpetrators of childhood sexual assault, the majority of whom commit these acts on multiple children over decades, if not stopped. I want to emphasize three points on this Bill. First, this Bill does one very important and simple thing. It removes the deadline by which a child sexual assault survivor must come forward.

Second, this Bill is prospective, meaning it is solely for future cases of child sexual assault that occur between or, excuse me, occur January 1, 2024, or after the proposed amendments make this intention explicit. And third, there is no revival window on this Bill. The Justice for Survivors of Sexual of Child Sexual Assault Act was created based on the first-person stories that survivors have shared with me and these survivors shared three key things.

First of all, the existing statute of limitations adds a cruel, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to the opportunity to seek justice. In creating this barrier, the statute of limitations prevents a needed opportunity for healing. And third, in not allowing survivors to come forward at any age, California is unintentionally disallowing cases that could prevent perpetrators from abusing dozens of additional children. The current statute of limitations for child sexual assault is 40 years old. And while 40 years old may seem long enough for most survivors, it is not.

It is not nearly the time needed to process what happened to them as a child, let alone to come forward. In fact, Child USA data shows that over half of sex abuse victims that are children first disclose that they were abused at age 50, and other studies show that the average age at which a survivor comes forward is actually 52. So for some, it may be hard to understand why it takes so long for survivors to come forward.

And as you will hear from our very brave witnesses, there are many things that prevent both children and adults from coming forward even when they know they have been abused. Some of that might be that they didn't understand that what happened to them actually was sexual assault. Some of it is internalized shame or feeling responsible. Some of that is fear of being hurt again, punished or outcast. And it's also not having trusted adults to talk or simply not being believed.

So while we cannot take away the pain of childhood sexual assault, California should not close the door to an opportunity for justice solely because someone has passed their 40th birthday. You may hear a number of erroneous arguments from opposition about why we should not exercise the tools we have to protect children.

You may hear from opposition that lifting the statute of limitations would bankrupt their institutions because either they believe it is too difficult to tell the difference between the actions of a groomer and the actions of caring adults, or that it's simply too difficult to stop the abuse. But according to data from the US Department of Education, this is simply not true, as the rates of childhood sexual assault have decreased by almost half between 1993 and 2005.

So we know that our institutions can and must do better. Finally, the opposition may suggest that there are alternatives to civil court, such as paid therapy or improved training. While both are important, neither are replacements for the opportunity for civil court actions that can create both healing for survivors and accountability for perpetrators. So opposition may ask for changes to existing law. And I will reiterate what staff analysis has already shared with you, that the issue is misplaced.

As AB 452 addresses one thing and one thing, only the statute of limitations. It does not change existing law in any other way. So now I'd like to ask to turn it over to the most important people in this room, our brave witnesses, Dorothy Small and Melanie Sakoda, who will share their stories with you.

Good morning. My name is Dorothy Small and I'm here to support AB 452. I can attest firsthand to everything that was just stated regarding the fact that predators are usually people that have formed a position of trust with us. In my personal experience, I was three and I witnessed the rape of my cousin by one grandfather.

And at five and a half after my mother passed away, I was raped by my paternal grandfather, and then, through adoption, ended up having emotional abuse that was of the worst kind. I had no sense of normality. Love was mixed with abuse and trauma and I couldn't escape. As a child, you can't run away and you find a way to survive that and make that work.

But something is not right, and it's the deepest need of every child and every human being to feel loved, wanted and needed and of value and worth. And if you're told that you're nothing over and over again and you've experienced abuse, that is just unacceptable of sexual nature by the first institution that we are introduced to, which is the most important institution, our family. And then you go to school and you're carrying that burden with you.

You feel unloved, unwanted, and you believe that sexual assault is something to be dismissed and pushed aside because you need that person to survive. School is mandatory. You don't have an option. You can't leave your family as a child, nor can you walk away from your school system. So as a minor, at the age of 16 or 17 years old, I was groomed by a high school teacher who was 10 or 15 years older than I, a married man, a position in politics in town.

So that was my first love. And it was sexually approached. And when I reported it, I was blamed. And I did the right thing to report that because I didn't want him to hurt anybody else. So that is another obstacle to coming forward. Coming forward is critical, but so often when you do, you're blamed. Even as a child, after what my grandfather did to me, my mother hadn't even been dead that long.

He warned me, he said, if you tell anybody, I will tell them you're lying and you'll get in trouble. But even as a little girl, I must have had an ounce of strength that I was able to tell. But then again, I had my face slapped and it was like I was blamed again. And that followed me. At 18, I went into the nursing program. I worked in medicine for 41 years, worked in pediatrics. I've seen the consequences of abuse of children.

And I also went on as an adult to carry that victimization so that I was revictimized over and over again through all my significant relationships. I did not know love outside of abuse. They just pushed it aside. And what happened to me at the age of 60 was the last straw. When I was seeking healing, I had been in therapy with a clinical psychologist specializing in childhood trauma for eight years. The firewall was so thick. What he was trying to tell me just didn't make sense.

There was no hook. He was trying to tell me that what happened to me wasn't normal, it wasn't okay. But when I was growing up, I was told it was love that was okay. So who do you believe? So I had a really strong resistance to the therapy that he was trying to perform. And I ended up getting sexually assaulted by a roman Catholic priest in my church at the age of 60. And that was the only sanctuary I had left.

And I am not a litigious person. And I tried to deal with it with victim advocacy, thinking I could work this out, but in the end, continued to be victim bashed and shamed. And it fed into my already toxic shame. And then I feared, what happens if this man goes on and does this to someone else?

And then I remembered a promise I made to myself when I was an adolescent, that if I lived long enough, that one day I would stand up for those who are oppressed and abused. So I got the courage and strength to seek the assistance of my former attorney, who has passed away, Joe George Sr. And he was also a clinical psychologist and a lawyer. And I told him what happened to me, and he represented me.

I was right on the statute of limitation, right on the edge. And although the psychologist that I saw could not get to the wound, he was able to hear me. He couldn't do anything for me. But what really helped with Joe George, with the attorney, is that he validated me. He believed me, he heard me, and he cared. And his credentials as a psychologist helped him to understand the symptoms of complex post traumatic stress, which also involves alcohol misuse, which I also suffered from.

I've also had cancer from all the stress and strain. And finally, here's this psychologist who can do something. So he advocated. He stood up with me, and we stood up against the most powerful institution, which is the Roman Catholic Church. And it was during that process that I finally felt maybe I am worth fighting for, because had this not happened, I think I could not have gone on much mean, if I couldn't be healed in therapy, then what hope was there?

So that put he believed in me. And now I went through the litigation process and mediated, and that bore $200,000. I don't have a nondisclosure agreement. I can speak about it. And shortly after mediation, about six months later, I joined the survivors network of those abused by priests. And now I advocate for others, all ages, adults abused as children. The reason why it's important to drop the age of 40 is I'll be 69 in May.

And it's just now that I'm thawing out enough to be able to put the feelings with the memories, which are pretty horrific. I haven't had any alcohol in three years, and there's no psychiatric medications to dull the memories, so I'm being flooded with them. And so I have a therapist, and together he's walking with me while I do the work. And I'm finally getting healing for the first time in my life. So may, when I turn 69, I'll also have 27 years cancer free. And that's it.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your very difficult testimony. Committee appreciates hearing that. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Morning. My name is Melanie Sakoda, and I am the survivor support coordinator for SNAP, which is the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. SNAP is the oldest and largest support group for victims of clergy sexual abuse. I am here today to speak in support of AB 452, which SNAP supports. Children simply do not have the superpower to communicate their abuse when it happens. Studies have shown that the average age for victims to come forward and report the crimes they suffered is 52.

Delayed disclosure is the main reason why AB 452 is important legislation. Science is telling us that the current civil statute of limitations in California, which allows survivors to file lawsuits 22 years past the age of majority or by age 40, is simply too short a time frame for most victims. The just closed revival window enabled by AB 218 generated new data for SNaP to examine from the lawsuits filed against the Catholic Church in Northern California.

That data confirms that the time lag from abuse to reporting is generally about 40 years, which means the crest for the 2020 to 2022 civil window was 1982. The filings show that 70% of the litigation centers on pre 1982 accusations. AB 452 would make it much more likely that future assaults will come to light. With those reports, more abusers will be exposed and removed from positions of authority.

Their testimony in legal proceedings would also shed light on the current behavior of institutions regarding the COVID up of child sex abuse. Future children will be safer as a result. What the data is saying in plain English is that a mountain of sexual abuse accusations will continue to be made if survivors are supported by lawmakers and given the opportunity to be heard. Please act to protect children, not predators. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Thank you. Chair Members. Melissa Cosio, on behalf of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice as well as the following organizations survived and punished. California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jamie Huff with CJAC. We're removing our opposition based on recent amendments and want to thank the author for her help. Thank you.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

Good afternoon. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully in opposition to this bill. We recognize the author's intent and we agree without a doubt that we need schools to be a safe place for children to learn and grow. And we also believe strongly in the need to provide survivors meaningful access to justice.

While AB 452 undeniably looks forward, it does build on current law without any further guardrails to provide assurances that today's school resources supporting today's classrooms and students will not be at risk for major losses. And just a reminder that the current statute of limitations is 40 years old or within five years of realizing psychological harm was the result of a sexual misconduct action.

We are grateful to the author and her staff to discuss this measure in detail, and we appreciate the author's amendments reflected in the Committee analysis. Again to clarify that this is a prospective application. We want to thank the Committee staff again for their time and the thoughtful analysis that does a very fine job of outlining the grounds for our opposition. And summarizing from page six of the analysis, we represent the schools and educational leaders that dedicate themselves to our children on a daily basis.

Our agencies have taken intentional steps with training, reporting, intervening to remove the threat of sexual misconduct with an amplified focus in recent decades. But we do believe there are other alternative approaches that are appropriate to what AB 452 offers when the unthinkable happens, alternatives to preserve the financial solvency of our schools while still providing meaningful paths for survivors to seek resolution.

And yes, we are talking a lot about current law, but it is important because it demonstrates how much risk we are facing as a school entity, because California statutes are uniquely crafted and they're different than from the way the Federal Government law is crafted and different than how other states are crafted. So it will be today's resources, today's Prop 98 dollars being set aside now, to serve as a remedy for possible acts in the future.

And this is at the same time those dollars are being tasked with remedying actions of the past and a burden on today's students. So for these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hello, everyone. My name is Craig Schweikard. I am the Executive Director of San Mateo County Schools Insurance Group and the current President of California Association of Joint Powers Authority in respectful opposition to 452. Although we recognize the amendments are significant and very helpful, we must remain in opposition. I would like to applaud the author's intent to keep children safe, which as a father and a public servant and my wife being a victim of childhood sexual assault, I feel that I have spent 35 years trying to protect students from this type of action.

And we absolutely support the criminal prosecution of perpetrators. We frequently cooperate with law enforcement to see that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But litigation isn't the answer. We are risk-pooling JPAs and we are self funded to fill the gaps that liability insurance won't insure.

We are nonprofit public entities that pay the cost of these claims for our membership and those funds come right out of Prop 98 dollars. Our JPAs are over 1,000 school districts and we have provided coverage for them since 1986, when the insurance market no longer would. We have grown and improved over the years to provide economical support for our school districts. But the current situation is becoming dire. We recognize the need for fair victim compensation. However, 452 is not the answer.

Currently it creates strict liability regardless of the school's knowledge or consideration of our substantial efforts to prevent abuse. We are currently paying hundreds of millions of dollars into lawsuits, half of which is going to the legal community. We feel that it's a much better use of money if that money could somehow be funneled to victims' assistance rather than to trial attorneys.

Sir, since I gave them a little extra time, I'm going to give you a little extra time, but I'd ask that you start wrapping up your comments.

Very quickly, no statute of limitations makes it impossible for employers to defend these cases. And it's basically you're punishing today's students because we're paying end teachers with today's dollars for things that happened 30 years ago when the standards were different and we didn't have the knowledge we have today of what we can do to protect the victims. And I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization only, please.

Good morning. Leilani Aguinaldo, on behalf of the School's Excess Liability Fund, respectfully oppose AB 452.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Association School Business Officials, also respectfully opposing the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Jason Schmeltzer, on behalf of PRISM, Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, respectfully in opposition.

Good morning. David Krieger for Keenan, on behalf of the Schools Association for Excess Risk, Southern California Regional Liability Excess Fund, Northern California Regional Liability Excess Fund, and the Statewide Association of Community Colleges. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in opposition, and Ms. Addis, I want to be clear. You have accepted the Committee amendments?

Yes, we have.

Any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Assembly Member Addis, for bringing this forward. I know it's challenging. I know that the school administrators and districts don't want to oppose, I imagine. I don't think anyone would. But I would say that I understand that there was clearly different sensitivities years and decades ago. And in a good way, we're far more sensitive and understanding and thoughtful about what we can and should do to protect our students.

That being said, I don't believe the burden should be on those that were victimized. As challenging as it is for districts to reconcile the finances, which is something that I think at the end of the day, if that's the case, then we have to figure out a way to help the districts with the financial burden, if it's possible at all, without putting the burden on the victims.

The reality is that everyone's different, and everyone's trauma is different, and we can't dictate based upon whether you're 40 or 35 or 55, when is the right time to deal with that trauma or to have it come to light. And even as the opposition said, I think this does build on current law. And I think as the analysis very correctly puts, the issue is not as much with what the statute of limitation is. It's with the standard that's being applied, and it's currently being applied.

This is just about expanding the statute of limitation. So if the opposition feels that that standard is too onerous a burden, then I think that legislation dealing with that standard is really what should be in discussion, not necessarily what the statute of limitation is. But I do appreciate and understand the challenges of the opposition. But I think that the target of that concern really is on the standard of proof rather than on the statute of limitations. For that reason, I'll be supporting the bill and I'll make a motion to support.

Thank you, Mr. Kalra. We have a motion for Mr. Kalra, a second from Ms. Reyes. Mr. Essayli.

Just a quick question. Thank you for accepting the amendments. Sir, you said this bill would create strict liability. Where in the bill does it do that?

Essentially by the language instead of and or it basically makes them very difficult to defend because if they knew or they should have known, the plaintiffs bar is able to argue that, well, you should have known.

What reference of the bill? I don't see that in there.

Go ahead.

Mr. Vice Chair, so this is in reference to current law. That's the current standard. And this bill would, as was stated by Committee Member, this would extend those existing laws. So you're right, this bill is about statute of limitations. But it is state that it is knowledge should have known or failed to present or prevent.

Okay.

And that is continuing with continuing existing.

I think it's important to have a clear record. This bill does not alter the standard. It just changes the statute of limitations. I just wanted that to be clear that this wasn't creating strict liability. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Connolly.

Yeah, I just want to note, as discussed with the author, I would like to be a co-author on this bill and appreciate the work.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. You may close.

Well, thank you so much. I'll just say that there are few moments when we have a true opportunity to change lives for the better, to create healing, and ultimately to offer an antidote for the horrible things that happen in our world. And right now is truly one of those moments, as you've heard from our witnesses. So, therefore, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 452 to lift the statute of limitations on childhood sexual assault.

Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. Ask the clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your item is out. Thank you.

You bet. Ms. Bauer-Kahan. I see the puzzled look on Ms. Wicks. We're going in file order. I like the fake puzzled look, Ms. Wicks. I like it.

Thank you.

My colleagues did ask me to kindly to leave.

I was debating that. You did get in kind of right under the wire. I will tell you, Ms. Wicks, I have been kind of considering that, but I had said file order, so. But your puzzled look is duly noted, Ms. Wicks. Ms. Bauer-Kahan.

Ms. Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to start by saying that I accept the Committee amendments which add standing for the victims, as well as increased enforcement for county council and city attorneys. So we're here today because crisis pregnancy centers in California outnumber legitimate clinics three to one. They specifically target low-income women, and they use advanced online advertising to target with misleading language promising abortion care, but are not licensed facilities, nor do they provide such care.

Google misdirects one in ten searches for abortion to these crisis pregnancy centers. With the increase in women coming to California and the increase in confusion around access to abortion care, it is critical that here in California we take increased measures to ensure people are not lied to when they're seeking health care. If you were to walk into a store to buy anything, say a TV, and you were misled in its dimensions, you would know that was wrong.

If you walk into a facility seeking health care and you're lied to, that's also wrong, but has dire, dire consequences. Patients who walk in and get care in these non-licensed, non-health facilities are told about misinformation regarding their own pregnancy, how far along they may be, so as to believe they don't have the options that they may have. Often they are misled about the side effects of safe and effective medical care.

So they wrongly believe that they would have to take months off of work if they take abortion medication or that it may cause cancer or other things that are just patently false. And this is all done to take options away from women who are seeking health care.

So this bill takes it a step further here in California to ensure that those who are misled in the care of any provider can seek remedy and ensure that they get accurate and safe health care as we should be providing for every California woman. With me in support today is Dr. Kelly Pfeifer, a California physician with 20 years of family practice and a principal at Care Access Strategies, and Cathren Cohen, Staff Attorney with the UCLA Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy.

First witness, please.

Thank you. Good morning. Sorry. Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you for having me here today. I am proud to be here in support of AB 315 to end dangerous lies about abortion care. My name is Cathren Cohen, and I am a Staff Attorney at the UCLA Law Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy. Crisis pregnancy centers or CPCs, have a documented record of deceptive practices specifically designed to deter and disrupt access to abortion care.

Recently, colleagues of mine published a systematic review of CPCs in California, a report titled 'Designed to Deceive.' Despite presenting themselves as medical clinics, 90 percent of CPCs in California offer no prenatal care, 75 percent have no physician on staff, and 58 percent offer only non-diagnostic ultrasounds, which cannot detect gestational age, detect fetal anomaly, or identify an ectopic pregnancy. Further, the majority of CPCs in California, 66 percent make false or biased medical claims about pregnancy or abortion.

Almost 37 percent promote abortion pill reversal, an untested protocol that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists calls unethical and not based in science. In California, CPCs outnumber legitimate abortion clinics, subjecting patients across the state to biased counseling and putting people's health at risk. AB 315 will provide a remedy to counter this misinformation and is consistent with California's commitment to being a reproductive freedom state.

Further, it will protect the state's ability to serve as a safe haven for those seeking care from other states, which our center estimates could be up to 16,000 additional patients per year. Everyone in California should be able to access evidence-based care without being tricked about what services are available or given false information about their health. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Committee to support AB 315. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. I'm Dr. Kelly Pfeifer. I've been an abortion provider for over 20 years. I currently practice in rural California. I also fly to Kansas and Arizona, places that don't have enough of their own providers. Many of my patients have suffered severe harms from CPCs, and I see them every day. I see people forced into later procedures because they go into a clinic thinking they're going to get an abortion pill. They get false information, false ultrasounds, delays, repeat visits, so by the time they see me, they're too late.

In other parts of medicine, when I get a test result from another provider--I trust it--I have to repeat an ultrasound on every person who brings me a CPC film because, as the Assembly Member mentioned, people are given images of other people.

They take a film and give someone else's ultrasound to them to trick them to thinking they have more time or to trick them into thinking they're too far along to get the care they need. My patients have no idea that this information is not private, and these centers are not bound to HIPAA. So they give extensive personal and private information, trusting that it'll be kept private, yet these centers can release that to whomever they want with no consequences.

I see teenagers whose lives would be devastated if this information was released. I see patients weeping because they believe sincerely that by getting this abortion, they will never be able to have a child, that they will risk cancer, that they'll risk mental illness, and they walk out of these centers believing these things are true, even though there are many studies reputing them. In any other part of health care system, this would be inconceivable.

Imagine if you go to a cardiologist and you're given a fake test result that tricks you into getting a cardiac surgery you don't need. This happened in Redding, it was criminal, and it was shut down, yet this type of false information happens every day for thousands of people in California with no consequences. So CPCs are giving false information, they're tricking people, this should not happen in any place in medicine. People should be able to trust their providers. I'm grateful for your authorship of the AB 315, and I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support, name and organization only, please.

Good morning. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition? Yeah, right here. And if you want to pull this one over a little bit, maybe you all can move down just a tiny bit for that.

Thank you, Chair and Members.

And just turn the microphone.

Is this better? Can you hear me?

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Susan Swift Arnall. I am a California attorney, and I am the Vice President of Legal Affairs for the Right to Life League. AB 315 is yet another unconstitutional attempt to silence pro-life speech. The bill prevents someone performing a quote, 'pregnancy-related service' from using false or misleading statements, quote, 'related to their provision or lack of provision of abortion.' Existing state law already bars false and misleading business advertising.

Yeah.

So what sort of statement related to a person's provision or lack of provision of abortion would be false or misleading under AB 315? The bill is vague, undefined, and meaningless. Our Constitution and the case law interpreting it mandates that laws be sufficiently clear so that one can know whether or not she is in violation of the law. Vague laws violate the 14th Amendment.

In Rabe versus Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state law violates the due process clause where its language fails to explain exactly what conduct is prohibited. AB 315 does not define what sort of statement relating to abortion is prohibited. The bill gives no explanation or a guidance whatsoever. It is unconstitutionally vague. Advertising is a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

The Supreme Court in NIFLA versus Becerra explained that states cannot choose the protection that speech receives under the First Amendment, as that would give them a powerful tool to impose invidious discrimination of disfavored subjects. AB's 315 intentionally vague language invites arbitrary enforcement by the state or private attorney general actions that discriminates against constitutionally protected pro-life professional speech. Taxpayer-funded state website abortion.ca.gov already describes crisis pregnancy care centers as misinformation.

I need you to wrap up.

Yes, sir. AB 315 is designed to chill constitutionally protected speech. It provides a means for individuals who disagree ideology with the ideology to target pro-life companies and put them out of business. For this reason, it violates the constitution and this Committee should reject it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the community. My name is Patuque, and I am from The Gambia, West Africa. I am a single mom, I work full time, and I am a part time college student. I have been raising my daughter alone by myself, and two years ago, I was pregnant, and I was going to be a single mother again. I felt so alone. I needed someone to help me, someone to listen.

I asked myself, how will I afford all these things that my daughter and my unborn child will need? Sierra Pregnancy made it possible. I went to their clinic. They showed me respect and kindness. They told me clearly what their organization was about and who they were. I went to their prenatal parenting classes. They gave me everything I could not afford for my kids, including diapers, wipes, car seats, towels, and baby cribs. They connected me with other support groups of other single mothers.

I felt like I belonged. They understood what I was going through and encouraged me. Sierra Pregnancy to this very day, still supports me, knowing that I am working very hard to provide my children the things that I cannot afford as a mother, as a single mother. Never did they ever tell me for once to keep my baby. They listen to me. They know that I chose life. Pregnancy centers like Sierra Pregnancy give 14 million dollars in services to California families.

It only harms single mothers like me and their kids and other nonprofit organizations to spend money to defend lawsuit to defend against rival's lawsuits. I know I can still rely on Sierra Pregnancy to raise my kids. Please vote no to AB 315.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization only, please.

Cary Wilcox, Sierra Pregnancy and Health, and I ask that you oppose 315.

Marie Leatherby, California Alliance of Pregnancy Care and Sacramento Life Center, in opposition.

Christine Campbell, just a concerned parent, in opposition.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, the Faith Baptist Church and the California Capitol Connection for Baptist Churches, Northern California Director, in opposition.

Julie Threet, Butte County Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System advocate, oppose.

Mr. Chair and Members, Molly Sheahan with the California Catholic Conference, in opposition. Thank you.

Shannon Hile, a concerned parent, and I oppose.

Nicole Young, concerned parent, oppose.

Kasha Williams, as a private citizen asking for a no vote on AB 315. Thank you.

Andrea Domitic, concerned mom, and I oppose.

Ted Hudacko, concerned parent. I oppose.

Erin Friday. I oppose.

Sasha Anya. I oppose.

Allie Snyder, registered voter, taxpayer, concerned parent. I oppose.

Bill Donovan, grandfather, and I oppose.

Thank you. Jennifer Kennedy, I oppose.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, Mr. Essayli

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some questions and concerns about the bill. Just let me ask the author, as far as the remarks about being unconstitutional, have you been advised by legislative counsel as to the constitutionality of this bill?

So, as you know, conversations with legislative council are privileged. So I'll answer the question from my own perspective, but not reveal that privilege. So I do not believe, nor does the analysis state, as I'm sure you've read, that this is unconstitutional. It differs significantly from the prior legislation, the fact act that was overturned by the Supreme Court in that that decision said you could not force these centers to speak in any way to provide disclosures. This does not. It merely prohibits false, misleading advertising, which is obviously already lawful.

And I heard you say the concern is false information, biased counseling, aggressive counseling. I've heard same complaints about Planned Parenthood centers. So would this law allow a private citizen to sue Planned Parenthood if they were engaging in similar conduct?

The bill applies to anyone providing pregnancy related services. It's content neutral.

So Planned Parenthood could be sued under your bill?

If they provided false information.

Okay. And I want to thank you for being here today. It's very hard to come and testify publicly. I've personally seen the great work that these centers do. I have corona life services in my district and Riverside life services, young, especially young pregnant women. They're very scared. They don't know what to do. And these centers provide support, and they also provide resources to abortion services if that's what they want.

But what these centers do is make sure that they know what their options are and they have resources available and support if they want to have the child. I think really this bill is about, are we pro choice? Are we pro abortion? And if we're pro choice, we need to allow these centers to operate with some latitude. They're privately funded. They get no tax assistance, unlike Planned Parenthood, which is a government subsidized.

So I would urge my colleagues to, if you're pro choice, let these centers do what they do. It's already unlawful to engage in misleading advertising. There's no reason to put a target on these centers back. So I'll be opposing, respectfully. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, we have a motion from Mr. Kalra. Do we have a second from Ms. Reyes? Thank you, Ms. Bauer-Kahan, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members and I just want to close by saying that nothing in this bill would prevent, and thank you for being here and telling your story, would prevent the types of services that were described by the witness. Nothing would prevent the support as it relates to diapers and wipes.

And you will see this legislative session, bills that I look forward to co authoring that provide those kind of services to women, diapers, wipes, the support that low income Californians need to do the parenting that they do. And I know I have people here that are authoring bills that support people who need the services that they can't otherwise get. What this bill prevents is lies and misleading information.

And nobody should walk into any establishment in California and receive information that misleads them such that they do not receive the health care they need. And that is what this bill prevents. And like I said, it will allow for support, but it will not allow for lies that stop people from having access to safe reproductive health care.

Thank you. So the motion is do pass to approach. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Motion passes. Thank you.

Next in file order is Mister Gipson. Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you, but you can't come up here to the podium. And as Mister Gipson's preparing, I want to be clear, we're proceeding in file order because it's the most respectful to the Committee Members who are here on time doing work. So I want the authors to know that we're going to hear items that they need to be here on time, ready to present their items, so there's no confusion from authors.

So we expedite the Committee as much as possible and make sure that we're respecting the time of all the Committee Members who've come here. So that's why we're proceeding in file order. And with that, Mister Gipson, you're next.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman and Members. Thank you, first of all, for allowing me to present this Bill. It's certainly a privilege to present this Bill before this Committee. Assembly Bill 360, which aims to ban the term excited delirium as a legitimate diagnosis or cause of death on the death certificate of those who have lost their lives while in police custody. Before I begin, I want to respectfully accept the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee for working with us on making and strengthening this Bill.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Assembly Bill 360 builds upon prior legislation that I authored last session, AB 490, that bans law enforcement from using any type of carotid artery restraints or chokeholds in the State of California. Excited delirium is a term that is used to describe many characteristics such as excitability, paranoia, extreme aggression, physical violence apparent to immune to pain. This term has been used as a catch-all for deaths that involve police restraints.

However, the majority of individuals who have died from excited delirium have been African Americans, Black people, Latinos, Mexicans, or any or other race of individuals. For example, in 2010, reports done on deaths in police custodies from possible excited delirium found that. Watch this. 166 reports reported deaths, 56% were African Americans as well as Latinos, 56%. Additionally, a report done in Texas from 2005 through 2017 discovered that more than one in six deaths in police custody were linked to excited delirium.

We continue to see the impacts of this term today with the deaths of Angelo Quinto of Antioch, California, Elijah McClain of Agora, Colorado, and so many more names that time would not permit for me to articulate. Let me tell you a story. In 2020, I wish that I had met this young man. In 2020. Angelo Quinto, a Filipino American, a United States veteran dealing with a mental crisis, stopped breathing at the hands of police. Two officers from Antioch Police Department kneeling on his neck.

Angelo Quinto died five minutes. Well, five minutes. They laid on his neck for five minutes. He stopped breathing because oxygen was restricted to his brain. Angelo Quinto's case it took eight months after his death for the Contra Costa Coroner's Office to issue a report before the autopsy. Before the autopsy, the official determination of Angelo Quinto's death was attributed to, watch this, excited delirium syndrome. Excited delirium syndrome is not accepted as a legitimate term by anyone. By anyone. Let me quantify that.

By the American American Association, by the American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization, they all have debunked this terminology being used in. Additionally, this is not recognized as a definition consistent cause that is recognized as a diagnosis in the diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder. Yet this term is still being used to explain individuals' deaths by a medical examiner.

By banning this term, it will allow us to focus on the underlying factor that contributes to any individuals accused or actual death of or by someone being in custody. And here to support Assembly Bill 360 is a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union, Carmen Nicole Cox, who will testify in support.

First witness please. Go ahead

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. And thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, for bringing forward this very important Bill. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm Director of Government Affairs at ACLU California Action, and we are in strong support of AB 360. Importantly, I will note that a coroner is a medical professional, not a law enforcement agent, and therefore should be required to follow the policies of medical professionals.

I urge this body to ensure that coroners in the State of California follow the lead of the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association. As Assembly Member Gibson noted, neither of these organizations recognize excited delirium. It has been called junk science. In fact, excited delirium has no International Classification of Diseases code, which means it cannot be assigned as a diagnosis or as a cause of death for statistical purposes.

And it has actually never, it has never appeared in any version of the DSM, which is the main diagnostic tool used by physicians and mental health workers in the U.S., and it is now in its fifth edition. Importantly, the President of the National Association of Medical Examiners has said that the group does not, and I'm quoting here, does not promote or support the diagnosis of excited delirium, nor does it consider it a valid cause of death. And here is an extended quote from the President.

If a person experiences an acute delirium prior to death, the underlying cause of death is the process that caused the delirium, such as the acute cocaine toxicity, alcohol withdrawal, et cetera. I go on. We agree that excited delirium is not a recognized medical diagnosis, end quote. This term only has any use when developing justification for deaths, primarily in police custody.

That means people are walking around experiencing the symptoms of so-called excited delirium, and as long as they do not encounter police, they won't die from this condition. Why should we deny the people, why should we deny people the respect and decency of professionalism merely because they had an encounter with law enforcement?

I will close by noting that what is even more troubling than a medical or law enforcement professional using terminology that has no basis in science in their role as a government official, is that when the American Medical Association, including physicians, residents, and medical students, adopted a policy opposing excited delirium as a diagnosis, it noted use of the term as justification for excessive police force disproportionately cited in cases where Black men die in law enforcement custody. The policy was not adopted in a vacuum.

It echoed research recognizing police brutality as a product of structural racism. Our governor, the California Governor, has said, quote, as a nation, we can only truly thrive when every one of us has the opportunity to thrive. Our painful history of slavery has evolved into structural racism and bias built into and permeating throughout our democratic and economic institutions. On this day in 2021.

And I need you to kind of need you to wrap up.

On this day in 2021, the Legislature recognized March 21, 2021 as the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Here we are exactly two years later, with an opportunity to breathe further life into Senate Concurrent Resolution 17, which stated, whereas racism causes persistent racial discrimination in housing, education, employment, transportation, and criminal justice, and an emerging body of research demonstrates that racism is a social determinant of health.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature declares racism a public health crisis and will actively participate in the dismantling of racism, I ask that you be resolved to actively participate in the dismantling of racism by ending the unmerited and racialized use of the term excited delirium. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Yes, Miss Pacheco.

I have a couple of questions, and I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. But I'm just curious, have any conversations been had with the coroner's office to see how this term came about, what their interpretation of the meaning of this term?

From my office and my standpoint, no. When we introduced Assembly Bill 490, this came up around the same time Angelo Quinto's inquiry came up. No coroner's office. We use the same term. We use the same term in testimony, and no one has rebutted that at all in terms of it's being used. As the ACLU indicated that I believe was a doctor had used this term around someone using cocaine and some drugs. That's when it actually came up.

But there was no validation whatsoever from the American Medical Association or any of the World Health Organization or anyone like that. This is actually a made-up term, and it has been used systematically when individual die in the custody of law enforcement.

And this Bill is trying to prohibit that from being used, because when a person die and a medical examiner office do what they've been trained to do, and their signatures of cause of death is affixed on that death certificate, that's what the person should be, the cause of death should be, not something that is not validated or made up. And we found out that this, in fact, has been the case.

And has the term been used in any other instances?

To my knowledge, no.

Is that question for me?

Or either of you if anybody knows?

I do believe there have been other instances where the term has been used.

Do we know those?

Not since most of the credible organizations have identified it as junk science.

And do we know about around when this term came about?

I don't have that information, but I'll be more than happy to get it to you as soon as possible.

Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? Motion from Mister Kalra, second for Miss. Reyes. The motion is do pass as amended to Approps. Mister Gibson, you may close.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Committee. One, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. But this Bill was presented in the Assembly of Public Safety and received bipartisan support. We believe we're going in the right direction, and we want to thank our partners who support this Bill, which is Campaign Zero, the ACLU, the California Public Defenders Association, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and others. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And just to clarify, I misspoke. The motion is do pass as amended. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Gipson. Ms. Wicks, AB 524 discrimination family caregiver status. Ms. Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I always love listening to my colleagues bills present, so I added myself as a co author, even. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. AB 524 prohibits discrimination against employees based on their family caregiving status. This bill requires that workplace policies do not discriminate against people because they are family caregivers. It does not require employers to make exceptions to policies for caregiving status. In April 2020, a group of hotel chain workers were laid off because of pandemic closures. When things started to open up, everyone but the mothers were called back. The hotel manager assumed they were busy helping kids with remote schooling.

Indeed, many of those mothers did want to return. They needed the income. One study found that mothers were 79% less likely to be recommended for hire, half as likely to be promoted, and offered an average of $11,000 less in a salary for the same position as similarly qualified nonmothers. I appreciate the support from this committee when I presented a version of this bill last year, and in fact, the chair spoke favorably on behalf of it in committee.

In response, we are not touching reasonable accommodation at all. That's something we actually took out of the bill this year. We narrowed it to take out the reasonable accommodation portion of the bill. More than 200 local jurisdictions and states, including Alaska, Delaware, New York and Massachusetts, have already outlawed employment discrimination against parents and other caregivers, covering almost 30% of the American workforce. But not yet here in California.

This Bill is supported by the California Lawyers Employment Association, equal rights advocates, legal aid at work, and the California School Employees Association, among others. With me to testify here in support is Liz Morris from the University of Hastings Center for Work Law Life and Julia Parish from the Legal Aid at Work, here to dispel claims of increased lawsuits.

My name is Julia Parish and I'm a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of workers paid low wages. Through our free legal helplines and clinics, we hear from thousands of working Californians every year. Unfortunately, discrimination against workers because of family caregiving status is real.

Although the norm of a mother staying home and tending to all the family Members is a thing of a past, if it ever existed at all, and we know that it didn't exist for most people. Assumptions and stereotypes about caregiving pervade the workplace today, and these assumptions can drive unfair treatment that harms workers in terms of lower wages, lost promotional opportunities, or even being fired or never being hired at all. In fact, family caregiving is becoming more visible to employers.

One in six Americans assists with the care of an elderly or disabled family member, and one in 12 are now part of the sandwich generation with caregiving responsibilities for young children and older family members. Family caregiving has a disproportionate impact on mothers, and women of color are even more disproportionately impacted by family caregiving. A recent example from our helpline is a mom who was planning on returning from maternity leave called her employer to discuss her return.

During that conversation, she was fired by HR and they explained that they foresaw her childcare would be a disruption after she returned. And again, this is similar to the example that Assembly Member Wicks shared. She never actually was able to return, so the decision was based entirely on assumptions about who she was and the kind of worker she would be because of her family caregiving status. This bill would simply prevent employers from treating their employees worse because of their family caregiving status. It is the most basic employment protection that we should not let those who care.

That we can provide care for our family members and not let that stand in the way of our employment opportunities. This bill does not require employers to grant caregivers any privileges that it doesn't require to other employees. So for that, we urge your support of AB 524.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Liz Morris. I'm the Deputy Director at the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, SF. Employment discrimination against family caregivers is well documented, harmful, and pervasive. It jeopardizes the economic security of employees who are caring for their loved ones, and it weakens our economy, especially by driving women out of the workforce. The question is what to do about it.

AB 524 offers a viable solution that has already been tested in four other states and hundreds of local jurisdictions around the country. What we have seen in New York, Minnesota, Alaska, and Delaware is that laws prohibiting discrimination against family caregivers work for employees and businesses alike. Why is this true?

Unfortunately, many employers are not attuned to the ways that biases against caregivers affect their personnel decisions, as well as the ways that acting on those biases can violate other existing employment laws like prohibitions against sex and race discrimination. AB 524 will provide clarity that treating caregivers worse based on stereotypes is unlawful. It will incentivize employers to recognize and weed out this form of bias, and by doing so will help employers to avoid not only caregiver discrimination, but also other currently unlawful employment actions.

We've learned from these other states that the impact of caregiver antidiscrimination laws is that employers retain valuable employees, reduce gender inequities, and avoid litigation. I want to be clear that the idea that these laws will not increase litigation is not just wishful thinking. It is the documented experience of businesses in these four other states. A rigorous 2021 analysis from the Center for WorkLife Law found that the likelihood a company will be sued under one of these laws is essentially zero.

In the four states that prohibit caregiver discrimination, there was less than one lawsuit per year per state filed on average. The reality in some is that directing employer awareness to caregiver discrimination.

That's two minutes, if you could, please conclude.

Litigation can be avoided under AB 524.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization and position.

Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, proud co sponsor in support and also on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, also proud co sponsor. Thank you.

David Feinberg, representing AARP. We are in support of the bill.

Good morning. My name is Jenya Cassidy, testifying on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition. We're a proud co sponsor as well and I have the permission to testify for the following organizations also in support caring across generations, Orange County Equality Coalition, Child Care Law Center, Family Caregiver Alliance, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, WorkSafe, BreastfeedLA, UFCW Western States Council, Citizens for Choice and the TechEquity Collaborative. Thank you.

Chair and members, I'm Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice California here in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support.

Good morning chair and members. Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers California chapter in support.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in support.

Pam Lopez on behalf of Work Equity in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Sorry to have my back to some of you. Chris Micheli, on behalf of Sherman, the Hollywood Chamber, I wanted to raise two issues for your consideration. The first is the expansion of FEHA Bill would amend the government code, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, that currently has 18 protected classifications. This Bill would add a 19th family caregiver status. FEHA applies to public employers and private employers with five or more employees, and it is enforced by a private right of action.

And in that private right of action, the successful complainant can not only get things like compensatory damages, emotional distress, injunctive relief, attorneys fees, but even punitive damages. So it's of grave concern anytime the Legislature looks at expanding the FEHA statute. Hiscox's insurance. Granted, it's a few years ago now, their study, but they found that the average discrimination claim to defend it in the State of California is about $166,000, a pretty daunting amount, I believe, for small businesses in the state.

The second item is that this Legislature, over the past 15 or so years, has been consistently passing anywhere from 40 to 60 new labor and employment laws each and every year, which is a huge burden for the General employer community, but particularly those smaller employers. The second thing is the definition of family caregiver status.

If you look at the definition at the beginning, we find some terms that we might expect, like child, a parent, grandparent, but it concludes with or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship, which, in my humble opinion, could apply to just about anyone. There are no guardrails in this language, and it's definitely a subjective consideration. Last point, Mr. Chair, if I could. California has a number of safeguards to protect against discrimination. We also have a number of leaves. Assemblymember Wicks recently added designated persons to the sea for leave. And so for those reasons, we very respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and Members Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we are respectfully opposed to this Bill as a job killer, and I want to address the accommodation piece. So, as Ms. Wick stated, this is the third time this Bill has been introduced. And while this version does not include explicit language regarding accommodation, our concern is that the practical effect of the bill as written is a de facto accommodation requirement.

Caregiver status and the concept of it is really intertwined with the concept of giving an employee time off needed or scheduling change to act as a caregiver. And so our concern that any denial of these requests could result in a discrimination claim. A court of appeals in California actually allowed a very similar claim like this to move forward regarding the issue of associational disability, which is the employee's association with someone who has a disability.

The plaintiff had been terminated for refusing to work his given schedule after having an alternate scheduling request denied, the reason being to care for a family member. The court reversed the trial court's granting of summary judgment for the employer, saying that the concepts of accommodation and discrimination are intertwined. They rejected the defendant's statement that that was really a fundamentally accommodation argument.

And therefore, even though they were not actually asked to review a cause of action related to accommodation or whether there was a legal duty to accommodate, they saw the denial of the scheduling request as accommodation. So from our perspective, this case gives a green light for this type of argument to be made in court or in demand letter. And as Mr. McKayley pointed out, a lawsuit risk of 160,000 is a tremendous liability risk, especially for a small business.

And I do just want to address really quickly the statements made about litigation. All of the state, other states, and local ordinance bills are far, far more narrow than the one in this Bill, for instance. Most of them simply address parenthood, not the exceptionally broad definition that Mr. McKayley pointed out. Also in California, you have about a 46% chance more likely to be sued than any other state, according to a study by Hiscox.

And further, if you look at Westlaw, which is only a tiny fraction of all of the lawsuits filed under these laws, if you look at like Alaska or Maine, it's about 100-200 cases. In California, it's over 5500. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, name and organization only, please.

Jamie Huff with a CJAC, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Latifah Alexander with the Association of California Healthcare Districts and we respectfully opposed.

Priscilla Kudos on behalf of prism in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in respectful opposition for the reasons stated by Sherman Cal Chamber.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturing and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Ben Ebbink, come back with the California League of Food Producers. Opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? In opposition, seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee. Ms. Pacheco.

Hello and welcome. Thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. I did have a question about the definition of family caregiver. Is there a reason why it's so broad?

So that's already existing law, that definition. So we're using existing law and it says essentially, family member means as spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or any other individual related by blood or his association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

So we're using a pre existing definition that already exists, and we're happy to keep talking about it as the process goes through, and we're meeting with the chamber as well to continue the conversation.

That's good. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

Ms. Pappen.

Yeah, I would concur. I find a little ambiguity with the equivalent of a family relationship. So if I can get some guidance on that. And then also, what are your thoughts on what we just heard? That discrimination is sort of an accommodation, as evidenced by the court of appeal is there.

On the accommodation piece?

yeah

On the accommodation concern that was raised by the chamber specifically, I'd refer to the analysis. I think the Committee did a really strong analysis in which it states, despite the opponent's claim that the proposed legislation would create a, quote, de facto obligation on the employer to provide an accommodation, this version, in fact, opted not to include such language. The reasonable accommodation procedures found in Section 12940, m through n are not modified in any way in this bill.

And so it goes on to say, assuming the employer does not engage in any otherwise discriminatory behavior on the basis of employee caregiver status, the employer would not be liable under the provisions of this bill.

Thank you very much. I'd love to see you work on further definition.

Yeah. And again, we're using a definition that already exists, but we can continue to work on it and happy to meet with the chamber. We met with them quite a bit last time. We'll continue to meet with them. Open door policy here, always in my office. And I also find that when you actually sit down with opposition, you can understand and often come to a better arrangement through that process.

Absolutely. We want to see people protected, but when it gets to these small mom and pop businesses, and we have these, it just gets very difficult, very precarious for them. So if you could zero in on that, that would be awesome.

Okay.

Thank you. Yeah, I have the same concerns, and the beauty of being the Legislature is we make law, but we can also change the law. So would you be willing to look at amending the definition of family members and make it more narrow?

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli?

As I mentioned, I'll talk to the opposition, and we can continue to have those conversations.

Okay, yeah, because I sympathize with businesses who have to provide services. They have schedules and if people are just last minute calling out and it's not really an immediate family member or need, I wonder about the case for abuse. And so I look forward to hopefully working with you on making this law better.

Sure.

Thank you,

Yes. Thank you, chair. Quick question. I'm sympathetic to the small business impact. I think that's quite concerning to me. So I'd like to see that worked on to perhaps eliminate their objection. Could you clarify for me, does this involve simply just family caregiving, not a business. So just a personal relationship of hiring a caregiver. So would this be covering families as well?

Yes

So that is concerning to me because it just creates an unlimited potential for legal challenges if there is a disgruntled employee.

Now, in a business, they handle that. They have human resources, they have all kinds of procedures to handle employee dissatisfaction. But when you're dealing with families and caregiving, I'm sure many of us have been through these situations where you just want to not be under the threat of a lawsuit that could be extremely hazardous to the family's health in terms of a financial situation. So I'm pleased to hear you'd like to work on some ways to perhaps narrow this.

I don't know if that would qualify, but I am concerned in that area.

Yeah. And as I mentioned, we will definitely continue conversations with the opposition. I think the thing that we're really trying to combat here is, again, the study that found that 79% of mothers were less likely to be recommended for hire, less likely to be advanced, paid less, those are some of the really egregious things that we're trying to tackle here. But again, I hear the concerns, and we'll continue to have conversations.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Okay. Seeing none. Ms. Wicks, you may close.

Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

We need a motion. Motion for Mr. Kalra. Second from Mr. Haney. The motion is do pass to labor and employment. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Your motion passed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Aguiar Curry. Before anyone else sneaks in here You have two bills, so we'll let Ms. Aguiar Curry go. She's been very patient. But, Ms. Wilson, you'll be next with your two bills.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, I'm here to present AB 933, joint authored by myself and my joint author, Assembly Member Chris Ward. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis and for working with my staff and the sponsors on amendment language. I am pleased to amend the bill today and accept the committee amendments suggested by your staff. This bill protects survivors of sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination for stepping up and speaking out against her abuser.

It is imperative that we use our power as legislators to protect them from ever having to experience sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination under our watch. Members, an act of sexual assault is committed every 68 seconds, and I want to stress that sexual violence does not just affect women, it happens to people of every gender identity, age, and sexual orientation. The survivors are our family, our friends, the staff who support our every accomplishment, and other members of our communities, including our extended capital community.

As you know, the halls of this very institution have not been immune to the unlawful, unwelcome, and toxic culture of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination. We must do better. The MeToo movement gave many assault and harassment survivors the opportunity to bravely join countless others in sharing their stories on a national platform in solidarity. However, while survivors courageously came forward, many were served with defamation lawsuits by their abusers. Defamation lawsuits have become the weapon of choice by proprietors to intimate, punish, and silence their accusers.

Existing law makes certain complaints of sexual harassment privileged and protected from civil defamation actions. However, these protections are limited and leave survivors potentially open to defamations lawsuits if they engage in certain forms of speech. AB 933 will protect survivors of sexual assault, harassment, and discrimination by clarifying that claims made in good faith are a form of protected speech.

Our expert attorneys and advocates have spent countless hours working on this language to ensure that the protections in this bill empower and encourage survivors to continue speaking out about their own experience in a safe and protected manner. By exposing these predators, we can prevent them from reoffending, and that means that our staff is safer, our families and neighbors are safer, and the public is at large safer.

With me today to testify and support is Beth Mora, a defamation law expert from Mora Employment Law, and Pamela Lopez, a survivor, a friend, and a courageous member of our capital community. Thank you.

First witness.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, chair and members of the Committee. My name is Beth Mora and I am here on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, a co sponsor of this bill. I have been representing employees for 22 years, victims of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination in the workplace. I am here in strong support of AB 933, which will help prevent the abusive and retaliatory defamation lawsuits that I see all too often in my practice.

This bill will simply make it clear that when a survivor speaks out about sexual assault, harassment, or discrimination, this is privileged speech. Under current law, this kind of speech is often protected under Civil Code 47, but because there are some gray areas, this can leave survivors open to attack by perpetrators.

For example, Ms. Lopez, this case here that the trial court mistakenly found that her statements at a press conference did not fall within the protection of fair and true reporting privilege under the California Civil Code section 47 B. This privilege applies if substance of the communication captures the gist or staying of the statement made in an official proceeding. In Ms. Lopez's case, a legislative proceeding.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision and held that her statements to the press did fall within the within the section 47 B because her statements to the press would reasonably be understood to refer to the allegations in her complaint to the assembly, and there was a fair and true reporting.

Although the court ultimately upheld Ms. Lopez's speech as privilege, she had to endure years of litigation, and many survivors are simply unable to take on that cost and emotional toll of such a lengthy and costly litigation. In my practice, I sadly have represented numerous clients who have experienced horrific and traumatic sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination in the workplace who are then retraumatized by claims of defamation brought by perpetrators specifically designed to silence them.

These are victims who have lost their jobs, who have then lost their benefits, who hire attorneys on contingency fee, who cannot afford to pay for this, who are retraumatized, sometimes worse, by the defamation. It is truly horrific. And then they are silenced in a way that are truly more victimizing than you can even imagine. We have not made progress with MeToo. We are more back behind wherever we started.

AB 933 will ensure survivors in sexual assault, harassment and discrimination are adequately protected for defamation lawsuits by clarifying that claims made in good faith are form of protected speech. In doing so, the bill would make it harder for perpetrators to retaliate against survivors with legal threats and intimidation. The protections in this bill will help encourage survivors to speak their truth and expose the behavior for those who are harmed. If we truly want to empower to protect those survivors who speak out clients they deal with so often, I truly urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee and members. My name is Pamela Lopez and I am so tired of talking about sexual harassment and workplace related sexual assault. I bet that many of you who have been in the Capitol community since 2017, are tired of hearing me talk about it, too. And that would be fair because it's a miserable thing to have to think about. It's a very painful topic.

But I don't have the luxury of forgetting about this topic because it has been a part of my daily reality and my family's daily reality for more than five years. And I want to talk about not just myself, but how this is an experience that affects all survivors who have had the courage to step forward and then experience a defamation lawsuit.

I'm in the luckiest of positions because I've had the support of the California Anti-SLAPP Project and the National Women's Law center supporting my defense against a defamation lawsuit. But let's be clear. Over the past five years, my son was an infant under one year old when I stepped forward and shared my story at the request of the very appropriately responding assembly that said, step forward and tell us who assaulted you. This has been a daily reality for five years. My son was a baby.

Every little moment of his life, every little moment that I've shared with my spouse over the past five years, Christmas, birthdays, I have had hanging over my head. The cloud that I am being sued for defamation by a really bad person who is absolutely out for blood. And that is the experience of every survivor who steps forward and shares their story and is then sued by defamation.

And it's important to consider that those defamation lawsuits are not just to get the survivors like me who have the courage to step forward. They are sending a message to other people, women, men, people of all gender orientations who step forward and talk about being sexually assaulted and attempt to stand up for themselves.

They're sending a message that the law works in the favor of the super wealthy and super powerful and that the law is not fair and that it does not work in favor of people like me. That's not true. AB 933 sends a message back that, hey, we as a community collectively, for every person in California who steps forward, we've got your back. And you will not be subject to defamation lawsuit like this. Thank you all. And thank you to Assemblywoman Aguiar-Curry for this bill.

Thank you for your testimony. Motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes. Witnesses in support.

Hi, Jessica Stender on behalf of equal rights advocates proud to co sponsor in support. Also on behalf of Western center on Law and Poverty. In support.

Julia Parish on behalf of Legal Aid at Work in support.

Michelle Teran Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status Women and girls in strong support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes?

Ms. Lopez, we're not tired of hearing you. To hear you reminds us that we're not done, that there is much work that needs to be done to protect those who are victims. So I do appreciate so much that you've not let this go, because your voice becomes the voice of so many others. So thank you for that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Haney?

Thank you. I want to thank the author and also thank Ms. Lopez for your courage. I've known you for a long time, and I am continuously inspired by your willingness to stand up. And you have done so much to change this place and the culture of this building as well, and to be able to go through what you've gone through and also really work to change the realities of what survivors experience within the legal system is so critical because people experience the violence and the victimization and then experience it again and again as they go through the legal process.

And so I'm really grateful that you all have continued to change these laws and also change the culture of this institution as well. And thank you for your leadership as well, and very proud to support this bill.

Thank you, chair. It does take a lot of courage. I admire your courage. I just have some clarifying questions. Your case is still pending?

We are in the final proceedings related to attempting to secure attorneys fees from Mr. Dabobney. I have prevailed, but I am still working with attorneys. I have to have conversations with them, sign documents, show up, have conversations, but we have prevailed. And I don't want to speak out of school, but that was about a year ago, so it was a very long process.

I'm really troubled by that. When Assembly Member you mentioned made in good faith, is that the definition is a comment that was made in good faith. Did I hear that correctly?

It has to be made without malice and it has to be made a good faith or reasonable belief. It has to be made with malice. Yeah.

And so existing privileged legal or lawyer client relationship, isn't that privileged? Those laws don't cover this? So in going public with an alleged defamation, does that break the attorney client privilege?

Attorney client privilege wouldn't come into play like attorney client privilege would always be relevant unless someone waives that privilege. I don't see that overlapping here. Unless I misunderstand.

No. That's fine. I guess that's the whole point when someone then goes public, maybe they're waiving it between the relationship with the ongoing lawsuit or going public with it.

Attorney client privilege. And this probably wouldn't overlap in that regard. No.

Mr. Essayli.

Just briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate you being here. I know what courage it takes to speak publicly, and we sympathize with that. I will tell you. I'm a new member here, so luckily, I guess, I wasn't part of the prior culture. From my understanding, there have been advances. I mean, to say that me, too, hasn't resulted in benefits. I mean, there were forms here at the legislature. I know, in orientation.

I received a lot of training on this subject. Weinstein's been convicted of multiple counts. Now, Bill Cosby was convicted. So I do think there's been some positive effects of this movement. One of the concerns I have is balancing the need to obviously empower and protect victims, but also with protecting innocent people who might be falsely accused. And that's also very traumatizing, to be accused, slandered and have your life and reputation.

I think the best example is what happened to the Duke lacrosse players who were accused of rape, and that turned out to not be true, and their whole lives were destroyed and turned upside down. So my concern about the bill is you're creating, basically blanket immunity for statements on this topic, and by elevating it to the public figure status, which requires malice, it's almost impossible to win those cases. We know that you can just look at slander cases involving public figures.

So my concern is that by having blanket immunity, there's not really going to be a deterrence to people making reckless accusations. Malice is very hard to prove. They could just say, I made a mistake. I didn't remember clearly. And so that's my concern with the bill, is it's a balance, and we have to protect victims, but also protect the innocent.

Well, I would just add Assembly bumper. And thank you for your comments that I am aware that I have been the subject of malicious and defamatory comments after I stepped forward. Every survivor who's ever made the decision to step forward after experiencing sexual assault takes that decision very heavily, because we know one of the first things that's probably going to happen to us is either to our face or behind our back. A lot of.

I don't mean to say an off color word in committee, but a lot of slut shaming. Right. That's one of the reasons that people don't step forward. And so I have never even had it occur to me that a defamation lawsuit is an opportunity to protect my reputation, even though I know that my reputation was in peril after I was sexually assaulted. And I did absolutely nothing wrong.

So with regard to defamation lawsuits, I would just point out that this is absolutely man or woman, whatever your gender orientation. I hope that the average working Joe doesn't identify with these rich and powerful people who file these defamation lawsuits because that is a rich and powerful person's game. Regular people like me, we don't have the money to put up defamation lawsuits anyway if somebody is speaking badly about us in a way that can be damaging to us. So I hear you.

But the way that the practice actually plays out, it's very much the Weinstein's of the world who abuse these cases.

And I feel like that's a really good point. Good question, sir. And I think you've made some valuable points. I also would like to acknowledge that in every case I have, I have to warn the person who's looking at the case about the risks of participating. And that is not just that you're going to be challenged and shamed, but it's also that there's fee shifting.

If you bring a frivolous lawsuit, they can come after you for fees and costs. No, not just with a slapp motion, sir, but the court can order you to pay the defendant their fees and cost. So there are safeguards that rails put in place for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. And so the defamation claims are actually now things I have to warn plaintiffs about saying.

Not just do I have to warn you that if you bring a frivolous lawsuit or a lawsuit that's even just kicked out, there can be fees and costs that you would have to pay. Now they might sue you. And what's happened is this massive chilling effect is that that's what we're talking about. Silencing and taking us backwards is the fear and the guardrails of fees and costs for FiHa claims existed already.

What's happened with the defamation claims is now people who would speak before are so terrified of being sued because they can't afford to defend them that they're not speaking at all. That's what we mean about going backwards.

I appreciate that. I understand. I think my concern is that this is just very, it says blanket immunity. It's kind of broad. And so maybe there's a narrow way to address this. But I hear you. I appreciate the comments it's a difficult issue. It's a difficult balance. But thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Thank you. In particular, Ms. Lopez. Thank you for your testimony. I know it's difficult each time you have to do this, but we're all together.

We're all doing it together.

We're all trying to get through a tough topic, right? And so this is a step in the right direction. So pleased to the author.

Want to thank Ms. Lopez for attending today. This has been tough. And many of us, not many of you that are up on the dais today, were here when this all happened. And this has been going on way too long. So I respect that you have shared your story once again. Let's hope it's not again. But again, I want to thank you and I want to respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass, as amended. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The motion passes. Thank you. Ms. Wilson, you have two bills. We'll start with AB 549 and then AB 957. Ms. Wilson. You may proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members, I am pleased to present AB 549. The California Elimination of Discrimination Against Women's act. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, commonly referred to as CEDAW, was an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United States General Assembly. It has been described as an International Bill of Rights for Women. To date, 187 of the 194 UN Member nations have ratified CEDAW. The United States has not.

This bill seeks to implement the principles of equality of rights, opportunity and responsibilities that California women and girls deserve as half the population and workforce. CEDAW provides a comprehensive framework for challenging the structural elements that contribute to gender discrimination, occupational segregation and the persistent wage gap impacting California women.

This bill would require all state agencies, in consultation with the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, to conduct a self evaluation to ensure that the state does not discriminate against women through the implementation of state policies and programs, including the allocation of funding and delivery of services. With me today are Michelle Teran-Woolfork, the Director of Policy and Legislation from the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, and Ashley Raveche with the United Nations Association of San Francisco.

Good morning Chair Maienschein and Members of the Committee. My name is Michelle Teran-Woolfork and I'm the Policy Director of the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls. The California Commission on the Status Women and Girls is proud to co sponsor this bill and has advocated for state public policy and resource allocation that centers the economic needs of California women and girls for the last 50 years.

Together with our partners in the Legislature, local communities, private industry, the governor's office, and agencies that make up the state civil service ecosystem, we are moving the needle forward towards creating a more equitable California.

In November 2022, the Commission released the California Blueprint for Women's Pandemic Economic Recovery, which analyzed the economic impact the pandemic had on women and California's economy as a whole, and we put forth specific policy recommendations designed to rebuild the economic infrastructure in our state in a way that supports California's continued global economic competitiveness by supporting the essential workforces who are predominantly women.

What we found, which will be of no surprise to any of you, is that women as a group went into the pandemic with greater economic burdens, were harder hit in terms of job loss, and added stressors such as caregiving, and needed more support to get back on their feet. The pandemic highlighted many of these inequities and further exasperated issues women and their families were facing prior to the pandemic.

While California has made many important investments and overall women have largely returned to the workforce at the same percentage they occupied prior to the pandemic, that still is only about 77%, with nearly one in 10 California women not working and continued barriers for women with high school diplomas, women of color, disabled women and members of the LGBTQ community.

Additionally, the gender wage gap grew significantly during the pandemic and the lifetime losses to retirement savings and the impact to potential homeownership and career progress for women, which largely stalled during the crisis, will be felt for generations to come. This bill, AB 549, addresses some of the gaps in a simple internal data collection supported for state agencies needed to eliminate blind spots across the state ecosystem without additional burdensome regulations.

By assisting each state agency in conducting its own internal examination of gender equity and funding allocations and programs, the Commission is perfectly positioned to help build set a foundational process in which gender equity is simply a part of how California government conducts business. The passage of AB 549 will build on our collective values of equality and offer a roadmap for the state to address systemic disparities and inadvertent blind spots in all departments, policies, budgets and through the provision of direct and indirect services.

Thank you chair Maienschein, Members of the Committee for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of this bill, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon. My name is Ashley Raveche. I am a co sponsor of AB 549, the CEDAW act, representing the United Nations Association of San Francisco. I would like to thank the Assembly Judiciary Committee for your consideration of the bill before you. AB 549 recognizes that effective public management and high quality evidence require both good data and a review of the data through an intersectional lens.

AB 549 remedies the complete absence of adequate data that impedes our progress and creates an interagency approach to a gender analysis as both a standard for data informed policymaking and a default. The fact is, women and gender experience cycles of uncertainty differently depending on their varied and intersectional identities, as well as societal impacts of systems of power, privilege, and resource allocation.

Quality data turned into evidence can help government agencies, officials, and others decide where to focus their efforts, find ways to improve, increase adoption of good practices, and build public understanding of and trust in government. Understanding the availability of gender related indicators over time helps California to identify the progress we have made as a state, as well as the obstacles yet to overcome. We cannot address what we do not measure.

AB 549 seeks a gender analysis of programs, budgets and services, and positions the state agency most capable of providing support to assist all departments in the gender audit. This is both a cost saving measure and a matter of best practice for interagency collaboration. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote of AB 549 to fundamentally include women and gender at every level of California's economic aspirations and recovery.

Thank you. Witnesses in support, name and organization only, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Kathy Van Austin, representing the American Association of University Women California, in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition.

I oppose this bill. I'm an adult human female. I'm not a gender.

Nicole Young. I'm in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Kat Gertin. Adult human female. I oppose this bill.

Judith Cahill. Registered Democrat. I'm an adult human female. I oppose this bill.

Barbara Walker. Adult human female. I oppose this bill.

Ali Snyder. I'm a woman. Adult human female. I oppose this bill.

Jennifer Kennedy. What is a woman? I am one. I oppose this bill.

My name is Shannon Hile. I'm an adult woman and I have not suffered any of this. I oppose this bill.

My name is Ted Hudako. Objectively, I'm an adult human male. I oppose this bill.

Ziv Rosen. On behalf of liberal parents in support of evidence based medicine, I oppose this bill.

Stephanie Swela. I am an adult female woman and I will stay one. Thank you,

Julie Free, Butte County, a vaccine injured female, and my mom's a vaccine fatality female and I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Charlotte Johnson. Adult human female. I oppose this bill.

Sasha Anya, Chico Environmental Health Advocacy. I oppose this bill.

Micah Hawes. I'm a male and I oppose this bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes?

Ms. Wilson, I want to be sure we're talking about this particular bill. It's just asking state agencies to share with us, evaluate the programs, to make sure they're not discriminating against women and girls. Is that correct?

Yes, absolutely. By asking each state agency to conduct its own internal examination of gender equity and funding and programs, we can help build a set of foundational processes in which gender equity is simply a part of how we do business in the State of California.

Thank you. I'd move the bill.

Motion from Ms. Reyes, second from Mr. Rivas. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli?

Thank you. Yeah, just to members of the audience. I think some of you are speaking on AB 957, which will be heard next. So this is not that bill. Okay. I will address my comments then. I don't have an issue with the intent of the bill. My question is, why do we need to reference CEDAW? My understanding is that it's a controversial resolution that's never been ratified by the Senate, so can we just do this without referencing CEDAW in the bill?

I think, as I noted in my opening statements, is that it's implementing the CEDAW principles of equality of rights, opportunity and responsibilities that California women and girls deserve as half of the population and workforce. And so because it's referencing those, that's what it's built upon. That's why we are referencing that in this language.

Okay.

And I'll see if there was any other further from her.

Yes, I could take that. So CEDAW is a framework for building a more equitable path for women and gender to achieve equality. It's not a set of laws or practices, it's guidelines. So it's guide rails, if you will. Referencing CEDAW is just looking at some of the accepted norms. As far as whether or not the US has ratified it, this is not what this bill is particularly in reference to.

However, we do have bipartisan support by three democratic presidents and two republican presidents, as well as passage of both Senate Judiciary committees and two hearings. It's just never been up on the Senate Floor for a full vote.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Ms. Wilson, you may close.

Thank you, Members of the Committee, and thank you to all those spoke, whether in support or opposition to this bill. With that to the Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The motion is do pass to Approps. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Motion passes. Next item is Wilson is AB 957, family law, gender identity, and you may proceed.

I'll give a moment for my witnesses to come forward. Well, hello, chair, and Members. Once again, I am here to present AB 957. This is a Bill that would require a court to consider a parent's affirmation of the child's gender identity when determining the best interest of a child.

This Bill would also require a court to strongly consider that affirming the gender identity of a minor is in the best interest of the child if a non consenting parent objects to a name change to conform to the minor's gender identity. Members, when parents do not agree on affirming a TGI. This is transgender gender diverse intersex. I'll use that acronym regularly. TGI. Transgender diverse gender diverse intersex.

So when parents do not agree on affirming a TGI child's gender identity, the family code does not specify how a judge should determine the best interest of a TGI child. TGI youth are at higher risk of depression, mental health crisis, self harm and suicide than their cis peers having at least one adult in a child's life who affirms their gender identity decreases their chances of attempting suicide significantly. 82% of transgender folks experience suicide ideation and 40% make a suicide attempt in their lifetime.

Research demonstrates that family acceptance of an LGBTQ-plus youth is a crucial protective factor in combating depression and substance abuse and can dramatically reduce rates of suicide by half. Furthermore, many TGI children are not safe in their own home because of a non-affirming or an abusive caretaker. This leads many TGI youth to run away from home, leaving them vulnerable to housing instability, exploitation and abuse. Well-rounded social support from friends and family members is strongly associated with positive mental development, physical health and overall well being.

As a mother of a Trans youth, I experienced this firsthand in my own home, and we provided social support not only from our family, but from our friends. And we began, as we journeyed through this process with our own child to be a caretaker to others who came to our home to seek refuge from nonaffirming parents. This is personal. I've experienced this in our community.

AB 957 would center the health and welfare of TGI youth by acknowledging that affirming their gender identity is in their best interest. I'm going to repeat that AB 957 would center the health and welfare of TGI youth by acknowledging that affirming their gender identity is in their best interest. I now would like to introduce my witnesses, Kathie Moehlig, the Executive Director for Trans Family Support services, and Camila Camaleon Leone from Gender Justice Los Angeles.

Good morning. Kathie Moehlig, she/her are my pronouns. I am the founder and Executive Director of Trans Family Support Services as well as Trans Youth Liberation. We are located in San Diego and to date have served over 3500 trans youth and their families. We serve families on the journey of having a trans child, families who oftentimes find themselves in family court not only navigating custody and visitation, but also a gender journey. This bill will codify that affirming a child's gender is in their best interests.

This is simply adding gender affirmation to the current list of factors to be considered for custody and visitations. The American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as all the other major medical, mental health and educational associations, all agree that affirming a child's gender identity is best practices. We have served many families that have found themselves in family court with one parent who is following their lead and affirming their identity and one parent who is not.

This situation puts the child and the family in a very vulnerable position. The court needs to have guidance on how to make these decisions and to be able to put the needs of the child first, as well as providing the affirming parent the support they need to continue to affirm their child's identity. This Bill will do just that. AB 957 should not be confused with the rhetoric about gender affirming medical care. Affirming a young child looks like changing names, new clothing, maybe a haircut.

Medical care is only for adolescents, and it happens within a team of doctors, mental health providers, the patient, and their families. Having to be in family court is challenging enough for our children, but for our gender diverse children, it is devastating. I speak here today on behalf of these youth and their families we have served, and I urge you to support this Bill.

Hello, Chairman and Assembly Members. My name is Camila Camaleon and I am a staff Member at Gender Justice Los Angeles and a Solis Policy Institute state fellow. We have served the transgender, gender-diverse, and intersex community for over 20 years, and we believe in the dignity of our communities, especially TGI youth. TGI youth deserve the right to live without fear, gender based violence and high rates of disproportionate health inequities.

California has set many precedents before, and AB 957 is an added measure to ensure Trans adults like me and families like mine who went through family court can feel empowered. Right now, the section of the code states nothing about this very vulnerable population of kids who we know are at a higher risk of harm, homelessness, suicide, abuse and mental health disparities.

In a study by the Family Acceptance project LGBTQ, Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender adolescents and families, it was found that the average age that youth realized they were LGBTQ was as young as seven or nine, with even greater opportunity for gender incongruence commonly described during the teenage years.

The misinformation of this Bill will share that the parental rights are under attack, but what we must acknowledge is that AB 957 helps parents who support their TGI children by clarifying once and for all that affirming a child's gender identity is in the child's best interest.

Nearly one in five Trans and nonbinary youth attempted suicide in the year 2022, but LGBTQ youth who felt social support from their families reported attempting suicide at less than half the rate of those who felt low or moderate social support. We could cut suicide attempts in half simply by empowering parents to support their TGI children and to listen when their TGI kids tell them who they are. California often sets the gold standard for policies protecting marginalized communities and populations.

States across the nation look to our example. Voting I on this measure gives California the opportunity to build on this legacy and allows our state to leverage our position to ultimately empower lgbtq youth and their parents. The TGI youth Empowerment act is a small step forward in the fight to create a more dignified, equitable, and safer world for LGBTQ youth and their families. I urge your I vote and thank you for considering AB 957 today.

Thank you. Witnesses in support.

Good morning. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California and the Los Angeles LGBT Center, both proud co-sponsors and strong support.

Becca Cramer-Mowder, on behalf of ACLU California Action, also in support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in strong support.

Good morning. Tabier Wooley, on behalf of the Empire Them collective, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, Free To Thrive and Parenting for Liberation are in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson, on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay, Board Member for Trans Youth Liberation here in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, I'm Erin Evans on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Support. Support. Okay. See no further witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition.

We'll allow two witnesses. Two main witnesses. Two minutes, and you can sit right here.

Thank you, Chairman Maienschein and Members. My name is Ted Hudako. I'm the dedicated, loving father of two boys, but I have custody of only one because I hesitated to socially and medically transition the other one. My older son, decided that he was a woman after my ex-wife's sister was brutally stabbed by her husband. He no longer wanted to be a man. My son likely is just a sensitive gay kid. My ex-wife placed my then 16 year old son on puberty blockers and estrogen against court orders.

My son is now 18 and likely unable to father a child. Since the root cause of his trans identity was never explored, his comorbid mental health issues continue unabated. Soon, he will become a lifelong medical patient needing hormone replacement, either male or female regardless, for the rest of his life, he will have a difficult time finding a life partner.

If existing data are correct, he will be more susceptible to becoming a drug addict and homeless, and he will have an almost 20% higher chance of suicide, contrary to what the other witnesses stated, despite this, I was somehow the villain because I thought my son was just perfect in his natural body. I was deemed an unfit parent because I wanted to get him the proper mental health support he needed. I am the pariah because I did not want to subject him to experimental medicine.

And let's be 100% clear, these are unapproved drugs not approved by the FDA for these purposes, which actually means that these satisfy the technical definition of human experimentation in our health and safety code. Look it up. Look up the human experimentation chapter, please. Norway, Finland, Sweden, and Britain have all stopped the gender affirmative care model for minors. France, Australia, and New Zealand are not far behind. These countries no longer recommend socially transitioning or medicalizing minors, except in very limited research settings.

You need to wrap up.

I understand. And I did see some witnesses earlier speak quite a bit longer, so I do hope you will indulge me.

I'm letting you wrap up. In this case, both witnesses were underneath the time, and I'm still allowing you to wrap up. So please conclude your testimony. Maybe another paragraph.

The recently released NIH two year study did not show that puberty blockers or hormones prevent suicide in minors. In fact, two of the 317 participants in that study tragically committed suicide. What loving parent wouldn't protect their child from this medical scandal? Senator Wiener, a childless man, excoriated Texas for punishing parents who transition their kids.

One more sentence. You're going to get one more sentence. So pick a sentence.

Sterilizing gay and lesbian children is not in their best interest. Sterilizing gay and lesbian children is not in their best interest.

Next witness. And let me just refresh. Every witness gets two minutes. That's the rules. So you'll have two minutes also. I let this gentleman go over. Ma'am, you'll have two minutes.

My name is Beth Bourne. I am a mother of a daughter who since age 14, thought she was a boy. My ex-husband unilaterally changed her name and birth certificate to deny that the baby that I birthed was not really the female that came out of my female body. Last summer, I selflessly gave up physical custody of her in exchange for a court prohibition of any medical transition. She is almost 18 and now identifies as nonbinary.

And she's showing signs of being comfortable in her female body. And it's proof that these gender identities change over time and should never be acted on medically in children. AB 957 will require a court to prefer a parent who will subject their child to experimental medical treatments. Treatments not proven to relieve gender dysphoria or prevent suicide. Medical treatments that lead to permanent physical harm and permanent sterility.

This bill will force parents to do what they know is not right or healthy for their child if they want to retain custody. I listened to 10 detransitioners and two desisters that spoke at the Capitol on March 10. 11 of them are autistic. Three had their breasts removed before the age of 16.

The girls who were on testosterone had aching vocal cords, chronic joint pain, leaking wounds where their breasts used to be, atrophying body parts, painful sex and chronic pain that no doctor knows how to fix. There are two case studies of young women dying of fatal liver cancer from off label testosterone use. One just 17. The other died in her early 30s. I implore all of you to do your research.

Read the studies, watch the films such as Affirmation Generation, which tells the story of why there is a 5000% uptick of kids, mostly girls, mostly autistic children, mostly gay children, saying that they are trans. Vote no on AB 957. Let children grow up in reality and naturally by letting their parents protect them.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization, if any.

Ali Snyder. Registered voter, taxpayer, woman. Concerned parent. Strongly opposed.

Charlotte Johnson, concerned parent. I have a question to ask all of you.

Ma'am, we just need name and organization. We have two main witnesses for each. Now it's just the name and organization part which is a rule for both sides.

I oppose because, who knows? No child ever tries to fit a parent.

Thank you.

Kat Gertin, detransitioner and biologist and I strongly oppose this bill. Affirmation does not prevent suicide.

Nicole Young, chapter chair, Moms for Liberty, Placer County. I represent over 12,000 concerned parents and citizens, and I vehemently oppose this bill. Thank you.

Shannon Hile, concerned parent and I oppose this bill.

Lisa Mullins, mother of a daughter caught up in this stuff and strongly oppose.

Erin Friday, Democrat, lead of Our Duty, 3000 parents are represented. My daughter formerly thought she was a boy.

Micah Hawes, I strongly oppose this bill.

Bill Donovan, single parent, father and grandfather now, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Jennifer Kennedy, I'm an attorney, concerned parents of Pasadena, in strong opposition to this bill.

Hi, Renee Yasimura, parent of a teenage detransitioner and I strongly oppose this bill.

My name is Ben Fernandez. I represent an increasing population of Gen Z, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Diego Rivas Fernandez, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Jana Negrie. 18 years old, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Molly Sheahan, with the California Catholic Conference, in opposition. Thank you.

Stephanie Swela. Strongly opposed. Mother, grandmother and great grandmother.

Julie Free, Chico, California. We have got an 11 year old transition without any parents knowledge, and I'm a bears victim advocate, strongly opposed this bill. Thank you.

Kasha Williams, representing California Parents Union, on behalf of our thousands of members asking for a no vote on AB 957. Thank you.

Magdalena Bowen. I strongly oppose this bill.

Nyali Renoso. I am a student and I strongly oppose this bill.

Sasha Anya, Chico Environmental health advocacy. I strongly oppose this bill.

Barbara Walker, Democrat, mother of three. I strongly oppose this bill. No child is born in the wrong body.

Judith Cahill, registered Democrat. I'm a mother in Santa Clara County, and I oppose this bill.

Heidi Anaya, and I strongly oppose this bill.

I'm Zev Rosin, Democrat, on behalf of liberal parents in favor of evidence based medicine, I oppose this bill.

Christine Campbell, just a concerned parent, in strong opposition.

Brandon Campbell, Northern California, Director of the California Capital Connection for Independent Baptist churches, pastor of the Faith Baptist Church and concerned parent. In opposition.

Gabrielle Ingram, founder of Stand Up Sacramento County, 20% of children with gender dysmorphia when they finish puberty are just gay.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Do we have a-- Oh, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do appreciate the way you run the meeting, Mr. Chair, and giving us the latitude to engage. I appreciate that. Ms. Wilson, I do recognize it's a deeply personal issue for you, and I appreciate you speaking from that perspective. I also appreciate you acknowledging the importance of parents and their roles in guiding trans youth and the rates that has on dropping the risk for depression and suicide, other mental health.

And that's one of the reasons that I support empowering parents and not allowing other institutions or entities to transition students without their parents knowledge. But let me ask you this. This bill doesn't just say that the court should consider what's best for the kid. It says it makes a determination that the court must consider the parent's affirmation because it is in the best interest of the child.

So my question is, why do we assume that affirming a seven year old's option or a seven year old's decision is always in the best interest of the child? It excludes a lot of other factors, and it excludes parents who might have questions or want to seek professional guidance in diagnosing the gender dysmorphia and exploring it. So I'm having trouble with why do we assume that that is always going to be in the best interest of the child in every single case?

Well, let me note, just to clarify before I get deeply into your question, and also give an opportunity for those testifying to speak as well, because, as was noted from the testimony in opposition, the code that this is addressing, family code 3011 is intended to focus the discussion and dispute about visitation or custody around the best interests of the child, which you noted. Now, this section of the code lists several factors for courts to consider when determining the best interests of the child.

It's not talking about medical issues in any relation. It's talking about what's in the best interest of the child. So this particular bill adds the very important factor that affirming a child's gender identity is in their best interest, which is what your question is about. Why does it actually say that in an affirmative way?

And it really is because if you have a seven year old who's talking about having a potential to say, I being able to articulate that they believe that they are not the same gender as they are biologically, then it should be affirmed and through care it should be determined. And that's what we did with our own child.

And that would give the ability for a parent who wasn't sure to affirm and get their child the care that they need to make that so they can begin to articulate that determination. But by saying and rejecting it in wholesale, then you're essentially rejecting your child. And that is not in the best interest of a child.

We should be affirming our children in every possible way and getting them whatever appropriate care they need, whether it's based on their gender, whether it's based on how their studies are in school, it doesn't matter. Our children should be affirmed. And this is saying that you have to include gender affirmation as a part of that. I'll give it over to my witnesses and support for a moment before I entertain any further questions or follow up questions from you, sir.

So I'll just add that it's gender dysphoria. And there are plenty of research, both from the medical community and the mental health community, that affirming a child's gender identity is in the best interest for them. And when we have cases where I have seen with our own clients that one parent is affirming and the other isn't, all the efforts and energies goes into that fight.

And that is not the best interest of this child, who now feels like maybe they're the cause of this breakup in the first place. I have seen kids whose one parent has affirmed the other hasn't, and at visitations has gone and cut hairs, or kids who have to take other clothes because when they go to the non-affirming parents house, they're not allowed to wear those clothes.

And when we think about what this does to the mental health of these children, of the code switching that they're constantly having to do based on this because the courts haven't made a determination, that's the suffering that I see with these kids.

Let me ask this follow up, and I want to be respectful of everyone's time. I guess my concern is that as a policy, we're stating that it's always in their best interest, regardless of what the situation is. And that's what I'm struggling with, that a seven year old may not know exactly what they're dealing with, and I think adults are free to do whatever they want.

But here we're talking about kids, children, seven year olds who are still developing, and to have the court step in and just say, this is always going to be the case I have a hard time with. Let me ask you this follow up question. Do you have any examples in where judges are getting this wrong or there's some abuse in the family court system?

Because what we're doing here is removing the discretion from the judges and removing an individualized determination so a judge can look at a specific case and say, in this case, yes, I can see this child truly has gender dysphoria and it's in their best interest that they be with this parent. But we're taking that analysis out and we're not even going to have that conversation anymore, and we're going to say it's always going to be this way.

So why not trust the judges to do the work in the court in what's the best interest for that child before them there.

It adds it as a factor. Currently it's not a factor. Currently, they do not have discretion to be able to consider that as a factor.

Well, can we change it to just say it's a factor? The way it reads now is that they have to consider affirmation because it is in the best interest. And same thing with the name change, it says the courts have to side with the parent who is seeking the name change. So it doesn't provide the court with much latitude there. I mean, if that's something you're willing to work on. But respectfully, as currently written, I cannot support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for your comments.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, we have motion from Mr. Haney, second from Mr. Kalra. Ms. Wilson, you may close.

Thank you to the members of this Committee, and once again, thank you to all those who spoke in support and all those who spoke in opposition. I appreciate the engagement on this particular issue, and that's how we do things in California, a democratic, transparent, publicly involved process. I appreciate the witnesses for sharing from their expertise and their own personal stories. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, the motion is due pass. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Motion passes. Next up, Mr. Bryan.

Answer that question.

Sure, yeah. Thank you. And Mr. Bryan, I understand you have a witness timing issue, so we'll do 13 AB 1324 first.

We're going to call an audible.

The sports analogy is appreciated. Mr. Bryan.

Absolutely.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1324 is a natural continuation of a Bill that we did last year AB 1686. 1686 actually changed some of the national conversation on a really important issue. Since the 80s, we have been charging parents for their children's time in foster care. Essentially they were paying child support to the counties for now having their children. It was crippling and punishing poverty extending the time in which families were prevented from being reunified.

It extended the time that children were in foster care an average of seven years. It was cost and effective for every dollar we tried to get back, we only got $0.27 back. We ended that practice in California last year. The Federal Government has changed the rules and ended that practice. Naturally, the problem and the reason for this Bill is there are still countless families out there who are holding this debt over them, and I think the state has a responsibility to discharge this debt.

Now that we've changed the rules, payments can range as high as $1,000 a month. If you miss a payment, you are hit with a 10% additional late payment fee by the Franchise Tax Board. This is an important piece of policy. It'll fix a problem that we've been dealing with since the it'll set a national standard for how to stop punishing poverty in the child welfare system and give families a chance to thrive.

With me today joining in testimony are Kristin Power, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy at the Alliance for Children's Rights, and Catherine Ahern, an impacted parent.

Good morning, Assembly Member Maienschein and Committee Members. I'm Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights. The Alliance for Children's Rights is a proud co sponsor of AB 1324, which would make complete California's commitment to ending the damaging and inefficient practice of charging parents for their time, for their child's time in foster care. The alliance for Children's rights co sponsored last year's AB to 1686, which narrowed the circumstances in which counties recoup foster care costs from parents.

Around the same time, the Federal Government issued clear guidance encouraging states to reform their policies to ensure that family reunification and stability, not debt collection, remain the focus of our child welfare system. These federal and state reforms are very exciting, but they are only prospective. Based on the data we have, nearly 40,000 parents have debt referred by the child welfare system. Like any other type of debt, this results in driver's license suspension, wage garnishments, withholding of disability and veteran benefits, and more.

Families whose children have returned home continue to be saddled with this debt. That could increase the risk of future systems involvement and even for those families whose children, like many of our clients, now have a permanent home with another caregiver, those children and their caregiver never see a dime of that debt that was collected.

AB 1324 wipes the slate clean and requires state and local agencies by 2025 to rescind and cease enforcement of prior orders and cancel all arrears owed to the state and any accrued interest. This would apply only to debt accrued as a result of a child welfare agency referral, not any other type of child support debt. Thank you, and we respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Hello good morning or good afternoon. My name is Catherine Ahern. Thank you for having me here. So, let's see. I'm a parent of a seven year old daughter, and I am a survivor of California CPS and child support systems. My child was removed from me in 2019 and not returned until recently. I had been told that I was responsible for the cost of my daughter's foster care.

I lose sleep to this day knowing that they could still come after me for tens of thousands of dollars. My income now barely covers the cost of food and shelter that my daughter and I need to survive. If they really do come after me, I would not be able to be here today. I would not have been able to afford gas or childcare. So let's see. As Mr. Bryan mentioned, some parents are being ordered to pay 500 to 1000 a month in foster care debt.

That is nearly half of my monthly income. I'd lose my housing due to the financial implications, and my daughter and I would end up in a shelter eating instant soup every night for dinner. In what world does that have the best child's interest at heart? I can cope, and I am coping.

But many of the parents I went through the program with are even more vulnerable than I. I have heard horror stories from similar parents in other counties where CPS is even more aggressive in coming after parents for foster care money. Many of the parents in the dependency system are there specifically because we couldn't effectively deal with the stressors in our lives. Shall I stop?

Okay. We've learned better ways of coping, and happily, some of us succeeded in getting our children back. But by putting the tremendous pressure of crushing debt on us after we've reunited increases the chances of parents failing again. Please help us. Vote yes on AB 1324.

Thank you for your testimony. We have a motion and a second. Any further witnesses in support?

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Brooke Huley on behalf of Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, proud co-sponsor.

Kevin Thurber. I was actually Kat's Attorney, and I'm the Executive Director of California Dependency Attorneys for Parents.

Jay Calcagno with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Reyes.

Congratulations on getting your daughter back.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

This is a great Bill. I think that your first Bill set the tone when that was passed and signed by the Governor. And I think this takes it a step further to make sure that the prior injustices are taken care of. Glad to support.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass to human services. Mr. Brian, you may conclude.

I just want to thank the Committee today. And I want to thank you for your courage in being here. It's unconscionable that we ever charged parents for the time that their children were in foster care. You don't lose custody of your children because you aren't struggling to thrive in a state or in a country that doesn't allow for everyone to always thrive. It's a lot of work to regain custody of your children. Families who have these fees.

We're in foster care an average of seven months longer. We change that for the country here in California now, we need to do the right thing and clear this debt, deficit or otherwise. And this policy framework sets up the conditions that will allow for this to never be the case in California again. Respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. A second. Ask Clerk to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next, our final item, AB 954. Mr. Bryan.

You're going to see a theme here today Mr. Chair, I want to thank you and the Members again for allowing me to come before you today. At this moment, I rise to present AB 954. It's a Bill that will continue our efforts to stop punishing poverty in the child welfare system. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for all of the incredible and thoughtful work that you do on this Bill and other bills.

I'm happy to accept the amendments that strengthen implementation mechanisms in this Bill. The amendments make clear that the courts need to inquire about a parent's ability to pay for a court ordered service upon their initial intake hearing, and that upon subsequent hearings, the parent cannot be said to be noncompliant with the court simply because they could not afford to complete the services.

Today, when a child is removed from a parent's care, the court may order the parent to complete a variety of programs to assist in rehabilitation before they are reunited with their child. However, parents often have to bear the costs of these court mandated programs, which can run for 52 weeks. And costs can be well beyond the means of impact of parents, a third of whom have an annual income of less than $10,000.

Currently, families are being separated or kept separated simply and solely based on the parents inability to pay for these court ordered services. In fact, many of these parents complete the court ordered service but can't prove that completion because they can't pay for them. There are examples and models all across California. In fact, most of California finds ways counties individually worked to provide different kinds of fee waivers and ways to mitigate this.

But we should have a statewide policy that prevents families from being and continuing to be separated solely because a parent couldn't pay or show proof of payment and completion of their reunification program. This Bill has no opposition and enjoys support from multiple legal service organizations. Joining me to testify in support are Natalie Bashian, and Shiksha Patel, attorney with the Los Angeles Dependency lawyers and a social worker investigator.

Thank you.

First witness yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Natalie Bashian and I am a Social Work Investigator at the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. We are the largest family defense organization of our kind in this nation, and we represent nearly 20,000 parents in the child welfare system. We are honored to sponsor Assembly Bill 954 today to ensure a parent's financial ability to participate in court-ordered programs.

Parents participation in services increases the opportunity for a safe and successful reunification, but currently, the majority of parents in our system cannot afford that. This situation is dire and existing policy is not enough. For example, one of our parents was struggling to make ends meet and had to choose between dinner and a parenting program. There are also parents living in their cars and homeless shelters who are collecting and recycling cans in an effort to earn more money.

Court-ordered classes cost anywhere from $15 to $45 a session, and the core often requires between 12 and 52 sessions. Court orders, like individual counseling, can cost anywhere from $35 to $150 a session, depending on whether or not the parent has insurance. Lack of funds limits a parent's capacity to comply with court orders, which prevents children from uniting with their parents. Delayed reunification traumatizes children, increases costs of foster care, and furthers financial and emotional stress on families.

Welfare and Institution Code 16500.1 subdivision A states it is the intent of the Legislature to use the strengths of families and communities to serve the needs of children and to encourage speedy reunification of families when it could be safely accomplished. Ultimately, we are paying more money to keep these children in foster care rather than returning them back home. For these reasons, Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers strongly supports AB 954. Thank you, Mr. Chair and all Members.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Shiksha Patel and I'm an attorney for the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers. We are honored today to sponsor Assembly Member Bryan's AB 954 in order to ensure that poverty stops being a barrier to a parent's participation in court ordered programs. Children are kept from their parents care because the vast majority of parents lack funds to pay for the court ordered services that they must complete.

I can safely say that 95% of my clients are impoverished and have significant difficulty paying for their programs. Oftentimes my clients have to choose between paying for rent or paying for their classes. Many of my clients would be in full compliance if they could simply afford the programs. The welfare and Institutions code, as it stands, does not provide a mechanism to ensure funding for parents. Although county agencies can use existing state and federal funds to assist families with their services, some counties elect not to.

For example, LA County, which has California's largest population of children in foster care, does not distribute their resources towards parents' programs. This Bill does not require payment of funds to the parents, but it does ensure that a parent's inability to pay for a program is not used as a basis to find them noncompliant. It does not require the court to overlook complete noncompliance and lack of effort, but rather support the parents who are actively trying to complete their case plans and greenify with their child.

It encourages counties to use existing funds to assist willing parents. The purpose of AB 954 is to support and enable parents to pay for court order services in order to complete programs necessary to reunify with their children and to create a safe environment for the children. Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers strongly supports AB 954. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Kristin Power with the Alliance for Children's Rights, in support

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

And Molly Sheahan with the California Catholic Conference in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Motion from Mr. Kalra, second from Mr. Haney. Mr. Bryan, you may close.

You know, as most of you know, I grew up in a family that had foster care for two decades, hundreds of foster siblings. I was adopted as a child. The fact that families that are actively trying to complete reunification programs are being denied that reunification solely because they couldn't pay for a portion of their reunification program is wrong.

All of the data shows that when we keep families together and we do our best effort to keep families together, it's better outcomes, not just for the family, but for the child specifically. This is one of those bills that is child-centered. It is a poverty alleviation Bill and it is family centered. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. The motion do pass is amended to Human services. Ask the Clerk to call a roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Motion passes. We will do add ons right now. So if you need, first is the consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please open the roll.

[Roll Call]

Item number one, AB 67, Muratsuchi.

[Roll Call]

Item number two, AB 70, Rodriguez.

[Roll Call]

Item number seven, AB 549, Wilson.

[Roll Call]

Item number 11, AB 957, Wilson.

[Roll Call]

Thank you all very much. Meeting is adjourned. Great job, team. Thank you.