Senate Standing Committee on Human Services

Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 1618051. We're holding our committee hearing here in the O Street building, and I will ask all Members of the committee to be present in room 2200, as well as our authors today from the Assembly. Please come forward so that we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing on time. We have four bills on today's agenda, with one Bill on consent, and, noticing our senators here, we do have a quorum, so we will--Assistant, can we call the role to establish our quorum?

Alvarado Gill? Present. Ochoa Bogh? Hurtado? Menjivar? Wahab?

All right. We have established our quorum. Thank you so much. I am going to move forward. We will take up the bills on consent as we are waiting for authors. We have Bill number, item number four, bill number AB 1512. Assistant please call the roll.

File item four, AB 1512. Alvarado Gill? Aye. Alvarado Gill, aye. Ochcoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bog, aye. Hurtado? Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab?

Okay, the vote is three ayes. We will hold that roll open. Okay. Senate Human Services Committee is in session. We are in room 2200, and we are awaiting our authors from the Assembly to come forward to present their bills. Thank you.

This is like a 15 minutes.

Yes. There's a consensus on our committee. I'll have to refer to the rules committee on this one. But we're willing to wait for 15 minutes for authors to come before we start our summer recess.

Someone's coming.

Check. We can only wait 15 minutes.

Thumbs up. Someone's coming?

Thank you. Assembly Member Brian. All right. We have established our quorum and we have taken up bills on consent. Item number four, Assembly Bill 1512. Your Bill.

Congratulations. Our role is still open, but we will be hearing item number three, Assembly Bill 1324. Please proceed when you're ready.

Well, thank you, madam chair and senators, for allowing me to present AB 1324. This Bill is a natural continuation of some work we did last year. We used to have a process that the federal government put in place in the 80s for counties receiving federal dollars.

They would have to try to recoup some of the cost of foster care from the parents who had lost their children. You can imagine that's a terrible practice, and you're not going to recoup much of those costs. In fact, the studies in California and Orange County specifically showed that for every dollar we spent trying to get money from parents who had lost their children, we only got $0.27 back.

It was bad government. It exacerbated poverty for those struggling families, and it unnecessarily extended children's time in foster care by over seven months. We did a Bill last year to end that practice in California, and in doing that Bill and signing it into law, the federal government changed the rules for the rest of the country, which is a good thing. What this Bill is, that Bill looked prospectively, this Bill applies that same thinking retroactively.

There is still outstanding debt that counties have set on parents who have lost custody of their children. It's money the counties have no intention of collecting. But every dollar they spend trying to collect it is a dollar of wasted taxpayer resources.

It is still impacting these struggling families credit scores, their ability to keep a home, and the children whose parents have these fines and fees still set on them unnecessarily spend an average of seven months longer in foster care. It's been bipartisan support for this Bill because of its good governance and because of its family centered focus. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote today. With me to testify is Kristen Powers, a fellow at the alliance for Children's Rights.

Welcome, Ms. Powers. Please proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, chair Alvarado-Gil and Members. Kristen Power with the alliance for children's rights. I'm pleased to be here as a co sponsor of AB 1324. Assembly Member Brian has done a terrific job of laying out exactly what the purpose of the Bill is and the intent.

I just want to add that like any other type of debt, child support arrears can result in driver's license suspensions, wage garnishment, withholding of disability and veterans 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 who now have a permanent home with the caregiver those children and their caregivers, never see a dime of child support debt that is collected.

AB 1324 wipes that slate clean and requires the state and local agencies by 2025 to rescind and cease enforcement of prior orders, canceling all arrears owed by the parent to the state and with any accrued interest. Thank you so much, and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Any other witnesses in support of this Bill? We'll move forward to lead witnesses in opposition hearing and seeing none, we'll then move to the teleconference service moderator, will you please prompt any Members of the public wishing to speak on behalf of Senate Bill--excuse me, Assembly Bill--1324 either in opposition or support that we are ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair, those who wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero, at this time. We're going to go to line nine. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Nicole Wordleman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on now to line ten. Line ten, your line is now open.

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

Thank you.

Line twelve, your line is now open.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

Thank you.

Line 13.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Freitas and I'm with the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. We strongly support AB 1324 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll now bring the discussion back to the committee. Members. Senator Menjivar?

Majority Leader, thank you so much for this legislation in sub three, Health and Human Services. We've talked about this uncollectible debt in the state of California and this moves us in a step forward. I was saddened to hear that we're going to push a year more to get this program in place to be able to stop collecting all these unnecessary fees that, you're right, don't even get to the family. So I'd be happy to move this Bill when appropriate. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I think the concern that I have with the Bill has to do with that it becomes just all encompassing with regards to whether or not the parents have the ability to pay or not have the ability to pay. I believe that it's still a parent's responsibility to pay for that, for their child support, especially if they have the capacity. Have you considered modifying this to where it's maybe in a need base, but people that have the ability to pay should be paying for their children's care.

Yeah, I think the time in trying to do those assessments is time that folks can fall through the cracks. What we know about the child welfare system is, almost unanimously, across the board folks who lose custody of their children do not come from the economic means to handle these fines and fees. Many of us couldn't pay the fines and fees that get levied in this particular system. It's also not child support in the traditional sense. The child support enforcement is the only tool of enforcement that folks are using.

But this isn't going to another parent or another custodial caregiver. It's money the counties are trying to recoup their cost of care from. So it's child support set on you, but the payee is the county. And the county is not actually collecting that money. The money they're spending trying to enforce it is four times greater than the money that they're getting back.

And so it's really about effective government and those resources wasted in this exchange of trying to get money from you that I will never get back. That extra 75 cents per dollar could be used towards the child's benefit. And so that's the direction we're trying to head with this. And I think that's the direction that I think California can set an example for the rest of the country.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bryan I want to acknowledge the effort and the amount of time that you have engaged with me to help me to understand this issue, to answer my questions and to rumble with me on this issue.

Always.

That is what democracy is about and that's what makes our government work here in California when representatives of opposite houses are able to disagree on issues and be able to bring forward amendments, ways to make it better, and mutual understandings. Because our experiences are different, our walks of life are different, but we are headed in the same direction. We want to do what's right for California kids, families, and we want to ensure that the injustices of the past are rectified as we move forward.

So you also know that, for me, child support is a very sensitive issue. I see pieces there that are quite broken, but I don't look at child support as a debt. And when we talk about child support as a debt, we do an injustice to the custodial parent that is taking care of the child's needs or the children's needs.

Debt for me is something where you buy a car, you buy a home, or you rack up credit card debt, you get something and then you have to pay it back. Well, a child is a gift. And to care for our children, it should not be seen as a debt that we carry on a spreadsheet, but an obligation that we do out of love and care for our offspring and our family Members.

So with that, I'm also looking at how child support in the counties accrue interests and I think that 10% interest on arrears is astronomical. And I would love to see legislation come from your office to deal with that issue because 10% interest on anything is very difficult.

Do it together.

We will. We'll do it together. I'm going to share some of my concerns that I have with this Bill ,that you and I had talked about, is the infinite retroactive bailout. My understanding from what you educated me on is that both the state and the federal government enacted laws to stop this practice at a certain point and to rectify the wrong. For me is going back to that date that the law changed and saying any behaviors that continued after that date, we need to rectify. For me to support an infinite retroactive bailout, I think, is something that does not take into consideration the years of blood, sweat and tears that custodial parents put into caring for their children.

The impact on children that are forever carrying the absence of the parent, and, in addition to those noncustodial parents that did fulfill their obligation to pay those arrears, to pay their obligation and through your Bill, there's no way to make them whole. But those who did not follow their obligation or fulfill their responsibility would get the bailout. So I am going to stay off this Bill. I do encourage my--

This was backwards policy in the 80s, it took us 30 plus years to recognize that, and the parents that have been harmed by it, I agree with you, the ones that have paid this through the years or had that 10% ruin their lives, been unable, I could imagine if we did a study to find out who on the street had ever had these debts and couldn't make it and lost their home, I think there might be correlations in all of these intersections. And so for those reasons, I definitely think we should have gotten this right sooner and there should have been less people impacted.

Can I respond to the thought?

Yes, we're going to have you close. I do encourage, as I always do, Members of my committee to vote on their own. So I'm going to go ahead and do that and allow you to respond and then move forward with your closer.

Yeah. So the idea of framing it as a bailout, I think, is a little bit irresponsible because a bailout is when the taxpayers pay to bail out a failing industry or a failing anything. This actually saves taxpayers money by year two because we spend so much money on enforcement, and it's not from one custodial parent to another caregiver: Foster parents are still compensated for their foster care. We have an entire infrastructure for this.

But, the idea that we would continue to impact others because we didn't respond fast enough to save others before, I think is something I would respectfully disagree with with the Chair, but I always appreciate where you're coming from and in talking to and thank you for all of your time on this Bill as well.

Of course. Thank you so much. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an ay vote.

All right, thank you so much. We had a motion from Senator Menjivar. I'll ask Assistant to call the roll.

File item three, AB 1324. The motion is due pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil? Not voting. Achoa bogue? Not voting. Hurtado. Menjivar? Aye. Menjivar, aye. Wahab.

Okay, so we have one aye vote, and we will hold the roll open.

We're going to find out. Ask for reconsideration now if the measure fails?

You can.

It hasn't failed?

No, it hasn't failed. The roll is open.

Okay, thank you.

Okay. We'll now move forward to hear item number one, Assembly Bill 1 -- excuse me -- Assembly Bill 51. Assembly Member Bonta, when you're ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members, I'm pleased to present AB 51, the Childcare Stabilization Act. By the 2025-26 school year, California will have fully phased in universal transitional kindergarten. This expansion of TK represents an increase in access to early learning opportunities for four-year-olds at public schools. That being said, we must first recognize that families need flexibility and affordable care for our earliest learners. And second, we acknowledge that community-based providers within the mixed delivery system, have expressed serious and valid concerns that the loss of four-year-olds may undermine the already fragile and highly decentralized childcare system.

I introduced AB 51 to support the effective and equitable functioning of our childcare system, in order to help stabilize early childcare opportunities for families and the providers that support them. AB 51 does three things towards ascent. First, the Bill expands existing resource and referral services to ensure families have easy access to information about available childcare slots.

Second, the bill seeks to provide just transition for providers, by requiring the state to consider the impacts of universal TK expansion as rates are being considered. Third, the bill requests that the University of California research the impacts of transitional kindergarten expansion on community-based childcare providers. Early childcare is fundamental to healthy child development and foundational for early learning and positive educational outcomes.

Our childcare system is primarily comprised of women of color, and the important and undervalued labor that they provide to our children is vital. Childcare providers are an investment in our children. When they raise our babies, they lift up our economy. With me today to testify in support of this bill is Juliet Terry, government relations specialist at the childcare resource center.

Julie, please move forward when you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Alvarado-Gil and members. Good morning, Assembly Member Bonta. I'm Juliet Terry with the Childcare Resource Center.

We proudly serve over 50,000 children and families, both in northern Los Angeles and San Bernardino County. It is the Childcare Resource Center's privilege to support this bill, along with other advocates. This bill addresses a number of important areas, but some of the most salient ones include: the impact of transitional kindergarten expansion on California's mixed delivery system, consumer education for families in the UPK system by way of family navigation, and state departments supporting expanded learning opportunities programs that are developmentally appropriate for four-year-olds.

We want families to be aware of their different childcare and early education options available to them. This bill makes provisions for resource and referral agencies to provide family navigation to the UPK system, with a high-touch approach and to do so through connected community relationships. This allows families to become aware of their full options within the UPK system, as well as the diverse offerings of California's robust mixed delivery system.

Specifically, this bill will allow resource and referral agencies to support families in navigation, referral, resource education and support services. Additionally, the R&Rs would provide services and linkages to health and social services, supporting a whole child and whole family system of supports for our youngest students. We know that children and families thrive when they are supported in a holistic manner.

Lastly, with the expansion of transitional kindergarten, we know that many families are in need of wrap and support services, and we want to ensure that transitional kindergarten students have access to developmentally appropriate, expanded learning opportunities as a part of a connected and comprehensive system of universal preschool. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote today on AB 51.

... in support.

Raquel Yafi with Thriving Families, California, formerly known as the California Alternative Payment Program Association. In support.

Thank you.

... from the Greater Sacramento Urban League and the California African American Chamber of Commerce. In strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and senators. Rosanna Carvacho Elliott on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Josefina Ramirez Notsinneh with Children Now in strong support.

Thank you so much. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Any other members of the public wishing to either support or oppose? Please come forward with your name, affiliation and position only. Hearing and seeing none. We'll move to the teleconference line. Moderator, will you please prompt any members of the public wishing to express their support or opposition on Assembly Bill 51 that we are ready?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time. It appears that we have no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

Great. Thank you so much, Moderator. We'll bring the discussion back to the-

-move the bill.

Hey, Senator Wahab! Yes-

I'll move the bill, yeah.

Thank you so much. Any comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh and then moving to Senator Menjivar -- sorry -- Senator Menjivar?

Just really quick. I know we're trying to get a summer break. I think this is a phenomenal bill. My only concern is -- and I think we've shared -- is the short time frame to get really comprehensive data on this. I think this might be one of our only shots to get data on the impact. I think this is really important data points that we'll need that -- potentially looking at extending it so that we can have robust information, but still voting the bill out.

Thank you. Assembly Member Bonta, I understand that you worked with the committee on amendments. Are you accepting the amendments today?

Yes, I am.

Okay, thank you so much. Would you like to close?

Just quickly -- As part of my closing, to address Senator Menjivar's commentary, one issue is that we've had universal TK, or a portion of universal TK, in place for a while. And so, the experience that early childcare providers have had is, at this point, years old in terms of the impact that TK has had on childcare. That being said, in order to be able to make the study findings relevant and accurate, we recognize that we shouldn't be setting it for 2027 because that's far too late and many childcare providers will close by that time. But we do -- have had information from UCOP that it would be helpful to have that date moved to 2025, which is included in the committee amendments.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member.

And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote and very much appreciate the Chair's engagement on this and committee members for not being home right now or on a plane to hear this item. I really appreciate it.

And thank you for working so hard on this bill -- to you and also the Women's Caucus. So, assistant, please call the roll.

File item 1, AB 51. The motion is due pass as amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil. Aye. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Hurtado. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab. Aye.

Okay, vote is 4-0. That bill is out. Can we open up the roll -- excuse me, can we open up the roll on consent?

File item 4, AB 1512, with the Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye. Wahab. Aye. 4-0.

4-0, the consent calendar is out. Item number 3.

File item 3, AB 1324. The motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations, with the Chair not voting. Vice Chair not voting. Wahab. Aye.

That's 2-0. That bill fails. Okay, that bill fails, but we will grant reconsideration.

Assembly Member Bonta, we have item number 2 left for you. Assembly Bill 1148.

Madam Chair, quick question on point of order or whatever, are we not leaving the roll open for a little bit longer since we're still in committee?

Our Senator Hurtado has left the building, so if she's in the building, I will hold the roll open, but she has left the building. So at this point, we need to move forward. I gave a 15 minute warning at 11:00.

So there's no room to leave it open until we're in committee?

We have one more bill and we're going to hear it, or we're not going to hear it, but I'm not going to hold us open. We have an individual who-

Excuse me, we're going to go into recess so we can have these conversations. Thank you.

Okay, I'd like to welcome Senator Hurtado. We now have our full committee together. Senator Hurtado, do you have a motion?

Yes, Madam Chair. I would like to move to vote on AB 1148, which was previously reconsidered.

Great, thank you. Assistant, please recall the role. Excuse me. Let's go back on that. I just want to double check -- 1324 -- is the bill 1324? I granted a reconsideration on that one.

And yes, correction. AB 1324.

Okay, thank you so much. It's almost summer recess, so we've got summer recess brain. Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll.

Alvarado-Gil.

Not voting.

Ochoa Bogh. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab. Aye.

Okay, the vote is three ayes and two abstentions. That bill passes. Okay.

Thank you for your patience, Assembly Member Bonta. We are ready to move forward with item number 2, Assembly Bill 1148, when you are ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to thank the committee for their engagements on this bill, AB 1148. The Stable Parents, Stable Children Act brings crucial reform to the child support system and alleviates financial strains for formerly incarcerated parents and their families.

Under existing law, formally incarcerated parents are mandated to begin paying back child support 30 days after returning home from prison or jail. If parents are unable to pay, they face punitive consequences such as suspension of their driver's license, inability to obtain a passport, and increased interest on the amount of child support owed. 30 days sets people up for failure.

It fails to recognize the many barriers people face when reentering into our society, particularly the difficulty in finding stable employment. And in fact, rates of employment and earnings among formerly incarcerated people are low. They are less likely to get a job before six months, and often not until twelve months.

And it costs them the ability to ensure that parents have the ability to have stable, secure employment and have the family reunification opportunities that they need, in order to be able to adequately support themselves and their families. AB 1148 will help support families by expanding the time to resume child support payments from 30 days, after reentry, to ten months. I want to emphasize that a parent's inability to pay harms children and their relationship with their parents.

Research shows: parents who are in arrears, on child support, are less likely to have relationships with their children. Ordering high levels of child support for the sake of a child can have the unfortunate result of harming parent-child relationships. Even the federal government recognizes the harm to children from child support orders parents are unable to pay.

The Federal Government child support requirements from 2016 state that: setting orders beyond a noncustodial parent's ability to pay can result in a number of deleterious effects, including unmanageable debt, reduced low wage employment, increased underground activities, crime, incarceration, recidivism, and reduced contact with their children. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote. I do have an individual, Claudia Gonzalez, with Root & Rebound, who's traveled 3 hours to be able to testify on this legislation.

Please come forward, and thank you so much for joining us today and for traveling. I know this is an important issue for you, so please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon, buenos tardes, Chair and members of the committee. Claudia Gonzalez. I am the Central Valley Policy Associate at Root & Rebound. We are the sponsor of 1148, and we are also a legal nonprofit supporting formerly incarcerated people with re-enter barriers.

So, I'm here as a formerly incarcerated woman, and in representation of our clients who are formerly incarcerated women in the Central Valley, and who were the inspiration behind this bill. So, I do want to share -- when I came home from prison -- and I lived in a small community in Merced County, Winton -- I couldn't find a job.

And so people told me to go to school. And so I went to Merced College, became Student of the Year, got a full scholarship to UC Berkeley as a Regents' and Chancellor's Scholar. Yet, despite my academic success, when I returned home to the Valley, I couldn't get a job. I had multiple felonies. Nobody would hire me. So, I struggled for a long time, until a nonprofit gave me an opportunity.

You can only imagine how difficult it is for formerly incarcerated, poor women in rural communities, who come home and don't have the privilege or opportunity to go to school. They come home to really draconian cultures with lack of resources, and then face financial barriers -- like not being able to find employment, and then owing child support. That means their reentry journeys are elongated -- the stigma of incarceration is elongated -- and ultimately, their families suffer.

And so we have clients, like Louise, who came home and owed $4,000 in child support. Within seven months, she couldn't find employment, and so that debt went to $11,000. Then we have people like Felicia, who owed $23,000, and had to make $650 monthly payments, but she couldn't make them because she had to choose between paying rent or paying child support.

So what happened? Her license was suspended. She lost her job, and so now she's in even more debt. And then we have people like Monica, who went the educational route like I did -- went to college, graduated from Fresno City College, made it to Fresno State. But, her child support debt keeps her without reaching financial security. And so, women are coming home, men are coming home, are struggling to find employment, and are struggling to make payments. It's not that they don't want to make payment.

It's that they can't. And when we account for regional and financial barriers, it makes things even more difficult for people. And so, 1148 is an opportunity to reverse some of the harms we have committed against poor people with records. We have a tendency to dislike people that do have backgrounds. And we claim to care about children, but how can we care about children if we don't care about their families? Because incarceration is not an individual issue.

It's a familial and community one. And so if we want children to succeed, we have to invest in their parents. And I am proof of that. Somebody invested in me, and I ended the generational cycle of incarceration in my family. And so, if we support children whose parents are coming home -- with giving them some relief, those children are going to end that generational cycle, and they're going to go on to succeed. Because, in order for children to thrive, parents need to thrive. And so I really want to encourage you to please support this legislation. Vote aye on AB 1148. I'm also available to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Claudia. Any more witnesses? Lead witnesses in support? Any lead witnesses in opposition? Okay. Any members of the public wishing to express opposition or support for Assembly Bill 1148, please come to the microphone. Seeing none, we'll now move to the teleconference service. Moderator, will you please prompt members of the public who wish to express support or opposition to Assembly Bill 1148 that we are ready?

Thank you, Madam Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero at this time. Madam Chair, we have several people who've signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

Go ahead.

We'll now go to line 13. Your line is now open.

Hello, this is Rachel Freitas with the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition. Our coalition strongly supports AB 1148, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Line 15.

Cynthia Valencia with the ACLU California Action in strong support of AB 1148.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Great. Thank you so much. We'll now bring the discussion back to the members of the committee. Okay, we had a motion from Senator Hurtado. Any comments or questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I want to comment on the bill. I appreciate, very much, the testimony that you gave today with regards to your life experiences. I actually reached out and I'm trying to understand a little bit more on the practical side.

So I appreciate your perspective on it. My neighbor, actually, and friend, works in Child Support Services and Child Welfare, and I texted her the bill and the analysis, and I said, "Hey, can you give me some insight as to how this works and how this would actually work in real life?" And I'm just going to really quickly, with permission of the Chair -- would just want to reach out and just share her testimony. But I thought it was very interesting because, one thing is, when we see a policy, we hear from people personally impacted by it.

We talk to people -- well, if we're fair and we talk to all stakeholders, we talk to everybody and how it looks. But she said, "Good morning. Every case is different." She says, "I think ten months is a very long way" -- or "long to suspend, but I would think it depends on the length of the person incarcerated." Oh, I'm sorry. I asked for permission from the Chair to read.

I apologize. She said, "I would think it depends on the length of the person being incarcerated. Many times a person receiving support will remain on cash assistance and will still receive child support." And then she asked if I wanted more detail. But I wanted to -- and maybe for you, as someone who works with the technical assistance -- or from the author -- I'm kind of curious.

The ten month seems a little random. I'm not sure how that figure or that month came out and so forth. But, do you think it makes a difference on whether or not a consideration should be made with regards to how long a person has been incarcerated? Because sometimes, when it's something pretty quick, it might be a little easier to gain employment.

I mean, the circumstances vary for so many. And that's one of the reasons why I have a problem with the bill, the way that it's written, that it creates a one size template, pretty much. And with something like this, there has to be a little more flexibility because of the nuances of the circumstances that each individual has.

We're human beings. We all have different life experiences. So in order to accommodate the different lengths, or the different factors that come into play, do you see that that might be an issue? How long someone's been incarcerated and impacting the child support portion of it? And then, of course, the burden that goes on the custodial parent, with regards to their responsibilities on here. Would love to hear your perspective.

Yes, thank you for that question, Senator Ochoa Bogh. So this ten-month period actually came from surveying our clients. We serve people from Del Norte, all the way to San Diego. And so, we sent out a survey to all Root & Rebound clients, and people responded. And on average, what we saw was that it took people anywhere from six months to 27 months to find employment. And so, women were actually the population who took a lot longer to find employment.

They averaged anywhere from twelve months to 27 months. Right. So when we averaged that, we came to the conclusion that 18 months was a good idea. Right. Of course, we had to cut that back through amendments. And so, there's a lot of data that states that people -- it takes six to eight months for people to get employment.

But even with that, and even us having Fair Chance Hiring Act in California, what we're seeing over and over, is that people will get hired and then will receive a conditional offer. They'll work for maybe one or two weeks, and then their background comes up and they're like, "Oh, wait a second. We can't hire you. We have to let you go." And so they might have a job for two weeks, but then they're let go. And so they're in the job market once again.

There's no way for them to get employment. So it happens over and over, even from big name employers, right. People are still violating the law. So people struggle to find employment. And then in terms of, like -- we absolutely know that people coming home from doing 20 years of incarceration are going to have a lot more challenges than people coming home from three months. Absolutely right.

Especially if you're institutionalized. But we could not invalidate the impact that three months has on people. Right. That's why we have a bail system, because some people can even spend one night in jail, and within three months, you can lose your job, you can lose your children, you can lose your housing. Right. And so three months of incarceration can have a lifelong impact on you.

Right. And so, we see that over and over with our clients, who, two, three, four years later, are still struggling to retain employment. And so we think that this ten-month period is fair. It's a period to give people relief and again, find stability. Because at the core of this bill is the well-being of children. Again, if children are to succeed, parents are supposed to succeed. Right. They're supposed to thrive.

Thank you. And, Senator, I'll just also address -- and I don't know through the share, if you would like me to address some of these questions in my closing.

Sure. We can address in the closing or you can address directly.

Okay. So just to share, we already have a one-size-fits-all model. It's 30 days. And the impact of having that one-size-fits-all model is that, because of the Bradley Amendment and the federal law prohibiting any retroactive modification of court ordered child support, that amount and the amount that accrues over time is essentially fixed, along with California's 10 percent annual interest rate.

So our one-size-fits-all model that we have in place right now for 30 days, which we know is far below the median of when people actually are able to potentially get employed, not only through the survey that Root & Rebound does, but through other independent research, we know that that one-size-fits-all model is not working. What we're doing right now is trying to ensure that there aren't compounding effects that we're limited by because of the Bradley Amendment and California's 10 percent annual interest rate, to ensure that there's an opportunity for somebody to have a job, keep that job, and ensure that they have the opportunity to support their families and reunify.

No, and I agree with you, Member Bonta, with regards to the 30 days. I was surprised, actually, to learn that it was only 30 days, because I know, based on sitting on public safety and I've heard many stories of life experiences and the difficulties, which is why we've had so many pieces of policy that address expunging records, right -- or not asking whether or not you've been incarcerated or had a felony on many employment paperwork. So all of that has been the product of stories like yours and why we're addressing it on that end. So I completely understand that perspective.

But the ten month is where I was struggling with as far as the responsibility. And I wasn't sure whether or not -- especially because on the other side, when you talk to employers in our district, in my district, I'm just going to focus on my district -- but as I speak to employers, I've also learned on the tactic that we've had with people going in and working for a day, just a couple of days, to show that they tried, and then they leave work because it's not made for them or they're not comfortable.

But they have to show that they attempted to get work and then -- for financial assistance. And so, there's also a system right now that we have a place that's kind of failing, that people are using. And so I'm trying to figure out what that balance is, where we put people accountable to hold a job, to stay working, and not just using the system where they go in and they say, "Well, I tried to get a job, but it didn't work for a day or two," so they can continue getting financial assistance.

So I'm trying to figure out what that balance is and those safety nets that we have -- the safeguards -- to hold people accountable, to have to work. So that's the ... And then the other concern -- and maybe perhaps, Member Bonta, you could answer. The concerns that we have with this bill with regards to -- let's see, sorry. Putting the burden upon the person -- let's see -- oh my gosh, where did I read this? I apologize. Putting the responsibility on the custodial parent. Okay.

The noncustodial parent obtains employment. The custodial parent then goes to court and obtains a reinstatement order. This procedure naively assumes that the noncustodial ex-con parent who is trying to shrink his or her child support obligations, will be candid and honest with the custodial parent about his or her newfound employment.

And even then, it unfairly places a burden on the custodial parent, to then go to court and file the appropriate paperwork to obtain an order to force the noncustodial parent to resume the child support payments. So technicality, it puts it -- just the system that it shifts the responsibility. And I'm not sure who wants that.

I will share that -- again, broken system -- that's already what we have in place. The opportunity here is that a noncustodial parent has the ability to request a modification hearing when they know that there is an employment that happens. And that is through the work that we've done, something that we believe is going to ensure that we have the ability to make sure people have a job, ensure that children get reunified, and make sure that we have an opportunity to have children be supported.

Okay, thank you.

Any comments? Senator Wahab, do you have your backpack on? All right, I see you. We're almost done. We're almost done. Assembly Member Bonta, you and I spent quite a bit of time talking about this bill, looking at ways to make it better. I do know that you've worked from a place of care and love for California, not only for your district, but for all of California. This, for me, is one of those bills that -- the intent really speaks to me. However, I still have questions with the implementation.

I hear from our sponsor how you came to the ten months. I represent some of the Central Valley as well, and I know that there are examples of situations throughout California that perhaps do not mirror what happens in the Central Valley, some of our urban centers and our rural centers. So I want to be careful to how we gather data and how we use that data.

So for me, the ten months is -- I don't quite feel confident in the ten months -- that it is something that I would feel comfortable supporting. But I do want to continue to look at the data and see what it says. I think there's also a difference between whether or not the length of incarceration, for me, is this one of those situations where if someone is incarcerated because of their failure to provide a bond, or they're re-incarcerated after multiple offenses. Does this deferment period of ten months continue to happen? And I'm concerned about that.

I'm concerned about creating a well-intentioned respite to help family reunification, but that creates a continuous potholes, if you will, financial potholes, for the care of the child, because I'm thinking about the child. Child support for me, again, is not a debt. It's an obligation or responsibility when we have children, and that child needs to be cared for, they need clothing and food. They need education supplies, health care, entertainment. They need to feel valued and loved.

And when the custodial parent is working two jobs or struggling to keep just a roof over the head, it's very difficult to be able to provide that to the extent that a child needs. Child support helps to alleviate that financial burden of having to work two jobs, when you're caring for your children and thinking about: how are you going to make ends meet? How are you going to buy those new shoes or that copay at the doctor's appointment? So I'm struggling with this bill a lot because I agree with the intent.

I just feel like there needs to be more work on this bill. And I know, Assembly Member, you and I talked about moving it to a two-year bill. I continue to express my concerns about these pieces, and want to make sure that as we put forward policy, as legislators, we are thinking about the child first. Because for ten months without that child support, the custodial parent or the guardian is continuing to care for that child despite, right -- that child still needs that necessity. And so I don't want to take money out of a child's access. That, for me, it's taking food out of that child's mouth.

It is making a situation where the custodial parent has to say no to things like field trips or athletic teams, to sign up for the football team, to go on a field trip at school, because it's a matter of whether these dollars make sense. And I speak about this from the heart, because raising three kids on my own, there was not child support to help support raising those kids. And the father of my older children was incarcerated at the time. And I understood that he was not able to care for the child's needs during that time, which put me in a situation that I did have to work several jobs.

I remember being in the lines of loaves and fishes and having to get -- to supplement food at home with some of the social programs in my community -- and knowing that even though I was working a good job and making a good living, I still could not close that gap. Because kids need much more than what one parent can give them. And so, I agree that we have a system that is broken, a system where one parent can make the decision to leave a family unit, right.

In situations like this, with incarceration, I absolutely know it's a broken system. We don't always make a choice that puts us in a position of incarceration, but we do make a choice when we bring a child to this world. And we make a choice when we decide whether we're going to buy something for ourselves, that we want, versus something that our child needs.

And so I'm going to continue to advocate to protect child support, to keep child support intact for the custodial parent, and ultimately for the benefit of the child. So I encourage you to keep coming with your lived experiences because they matter. And thank you again for being here, and I look forward to seeing policy that puts our children first. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay, please close.

Thank you, Chair. This is policy that puts children first. The reality is that 75 percent of outstanding child support debt in California is owed by parents who could not afford to pay that child support.

Our system is broken right now, particularly for people who are re-entering, who we all know, not only through the survey data that has been provided by our sponsor, but through independent research, that people have a difficulty in getting employed. And so, as another child -- as a child -- who was raised, receiving child support, and dependent with my single mother every single month on whether or not that check would come to be able to subsist. This is a very personal issue for me, and particularly for those who are re-entering.

The objective is to ensure that people don't recidivate, that they have an opportunity to continue to integrate into their community, that they connect and have the ability to connect with their family members and their children. Because children, when they can have -- if they have both parents available to them, deserve for both parents to be there, not for one to get incarcerated, have the ability to come back, and because they are more concerned about paying child support, and making a potentially bad decision to get quick cash in order to be able to pay that and end up recidivating, that is not doing children any good. And that's the system that we have in place now. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member, and you make many valid arguments. So thank you so much for bringing this forward. Assistant, will you please call the roll.

File item 2, AB 1148. The motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Alvarado-Gil?

Not voting.

Ochoa Bogh. Hurtado. Aye. Menjivar. Aye. Wahab. Aye.

3-0. That bill is out. Congratulations. So before everyone leaves, please, I want to make sure that we all take an opportunity to thank our committee -- all of our colleagues, thank you so much Vice Chair, Senator Ochoa Bogh, Senator Menjivar, Senator Wahab, Senator Hurtado -- our committee staff: Heather, Bridget, Diana, Varnell and Joe.

Thank you so much for all your dedication the last six months here -- our sergeants for making sure that we are safe and, of course, that we are present, and moderators for keeping our hearings accessible to the public. Have a wonderful, wonderful, well-deserved recess. Thank you so much. Bye.