Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Good morning, and welcome to the Judiciary Committee hearing today. As a reminder, each side will be allowed two main witnesses, two minutes each. 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 on the record.

As we proceed with our Bill hearing, I want to make sure everyone understand ends our Committee rules to ensure we maintain order and run a fair and efficient meeting. 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 legislative proceedings. We will not accept disruptive behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence, even failed threats.

The 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 to a Bill. No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. No engaging in personal attacks of Members of this Committee, authors, or staff. And please be aware that violation of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement procedures.

With that, we'll get started immediately. I see item number one. We have our author here, Senator Laird. Okay. And you have two bills, so we'll present both of them and we'll start with SB 80 Senator Laird. Before we have you get started, we do have a quorum. Great job, everybody. So let's call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Senator Laird, you may begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. You're setting a standard of a quorum at the start of a Judiciary Committee hearing, which I'm not sure the Senate is yet to meet.

Well, I will tell you, Senator, the train runs on time here in this committee.

Good.

Thank you.

Well, that's good. You should advise India.

I'll do that later today. But in the meantime, go ahead.

Yeah, Senator Roth is like, really? You're just talking on and on and on about your Bill. So Senate Bill 80 will help all parties be aware of and mutually agreeable to the provisions within retail installment contracts by increasing the font size. The California Retailers Association and the wireless industry has suggested amendments, and we are working with them in the hopes that we can find some kind of solution that brings along the consumer groups that are the supporters.

And so that's the one remaining issue that's out there. We are committed to work on it. The font size can be problematic for consumers when they overlook and inaccurately interpret essential provisions. Utilizing a larger one will ensure consumers and parties are better aware. Unlike last year's Bill which moved through this Bill has a six month delayed implementation to ensure a smooth transition to compliance. It has support on both sides, unanimous bipartisan support in the Senate, and no no votes.

So I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have witnesses in support?

We don't have designated witnesses.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Ignacio Hernández on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California. If I can take 30 seconds if that's appropriate, I appreciate it. I want to thank the author for this Bill. It's very straightforward in the discussions of potential amendments.

Great.

Let's just keep in mind, both as a longtime consumer advocate, as an attorney, and as the person that my family and friends always call when they run into these kinds of problems, what I find commonly is that they say, well, it was described this way. They always told this, there's a summary here. And I always start off saying, well, what does the contract say? Let's look at the terms of the contract. So having the font size larger for the contract is critical.

Oftentimes we've worked on bills with the opposition for many, many years. We highlight the key terms within the contract so that the consumer can turn their eye to that and always know what the key terms are. So that's very different than a summary. And so just keep that in mind as the discussions go forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I find myself in the- Oh, Margaret Gladstein on behalf of the California Retailers Association. I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to oppose one of my favorite Senators' bills. But I am here today with concerns about this Bill. We have been engaging with the Senator's office, actually, since he had the Bill last year, trying to come to resolution. Just for a brief primer for all of you, this law has been on the book since 1959.

Many of you, or perhaps your parents probably bought their first couch or stereo using a retail installment contract they're used far less frequently these days as credit cards and even buy nail pay later have supplanted the use of these contracts. But there are still a few retailers who use them. We certainly support transparency, want to be sure consumers are aware of what they're signing and the terms of any contract they may make for a retail purchase.

We are not aware of any problems that have arisen with these contracts since 1959. I'm sure there have been a few, but no recent press articles that I could find or any particular issues. We have gone to the Chair, to the author, and offered a set of amendments which would give options to the retailer to provide a summary of the key terms in 12 point font, a nice one page summary.

So they're aware of the terms offered an electronic format which we think modernizes the statute or comply with the 12 point font, which would increase the paper usage by 50%. So we believe that we've offered a viable alternative. We certainly hope we can work through these issues with the Senator, but for now, we remained opposed.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Apologies. I just did also want to add that CTI cannot be here this morning, but they did ask me to represent them as well.

Okay. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Haney.

Thank you. And thank you to the author. I think this is a very important measure, and definitely I love in the analysis it's showing the 8 point font and how small it is. I do think that there's something to this idea of having a summary in addition to it. For me, when you have a long contract, people might not go through it, no matter what the font is.

I know the opposition had some recommendations on that, but is there any thought that you have to that of whether that's something that could be helpful for folks to be able to understand kind of the high level stuff that they should be able to know about?

Thank you for the question. I suspect it would be helpful. We had not considered it yet in this process. And I know I have a lot of fun with all my legislative staff as I break them in when they want to write a five page letter to the Governor to sign a Bill to try to get them to do one paragraph at the beginning that just summarizes it all and gets it done. So I appreciate the merit.

We'll look at that if the Bill moves forward.

Ms. Dixon.

Thank you, Chair. Well, just to follow up on the comments, she spoke in opposition. I'm trying to get my head around where the problem is, and today many agreements can be obtained digitally. And so when you get it digitally, then you could expand it. So I'm just trying to identify the root cause of the problem. And then you think about all it causes us me to think about all other documents that consumers sign. I mean, there's mortgage loans, rental agreements.

I am really not enthusiastic for the state to mandate font sizes today when so many documents are available digitally, or you could obtain one. If somebody says, send me this to my email, I know that that would be available. So I just hesitate to put the state in the situation where we're regulating font sizes. I think it's kind of ludicrous, frankly. So tell me what's really driving this.

I think what's really driving this is that there still are many that are done in person. And when they're done in person, the person that is signing it is not the person with the leverage in the situation in terms of understanding it. And a lot of times they're not people that do this online or any way other than in person. And it's making sure that they're fairly represented and have the option to understand exactly what they're entering into.

Well, I really fully support the idea of a summary, Executive paragraph, if you will, that summarizes. I think that would be wholeheartedly sufficient. And then to print out, I think the paper consumption issue is not a minor one, so I would appreciate that amendment if that's what you're working on as well.

We would look at that.

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

I would also like to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Transparency is very important, but I have also the same concerns and today I will be voting yes on this Bill. But I would also like to see if you could work with the opposition and maybe work with the amendments that they have offered. But thank you for this Bill and again, I will be voting yes on this item today.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Thank you, Senator. I will tell you, as my staff will also attest, font size was not an issue that I had really thought about much until the last year or two, so become much more of an issue in my life. As an aside, too, I appreciate you doing this. I think you hear the kind of the consensus of the Committee. You're known as an author who continues to work on these.

So I know you will as it continues to go through the process. So thank you. Pleased to support it today. Do we have a motion from the Committee? Motion from Mr. Haney. Second from Ms. Pacheco. The motion is due passed to appropriations. You may close.

I will continue to work with people and I appreciate an aye vote.

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

[Roll call]

We need one more. Your bill is on call. Thank you. And we'll keep you there and move you on to item number five, SB 564.

Thank you very much. This bill will modestly increase and conform 20 various fees that sheriff's offices are permitted to charge to fulfill their legal obligation to serve, process, to close or match the costs of providing that service and reflect inflation. These fees have not been a raise since 2015. Even this raise does not keep up with inflation. My office received an opposed and less amended letter from the California Association of Judgment Professionals.

We have met with them and they take no issue with the overall fee increases. Instead, they have concerns that the code section is unclear, leading to double charging. We believe their proposed changes are beyond the scope of the bill. And while the opposition has shared their plans to run their own bill next year, they remain in opposition. And so we feel it's appropriate to move ahead. The bill has had no no votes, received bipartisan support. And here to speak in support is Cory Salzillo, Legislative Director with the California State Sheriff's Association.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo with the California State Sheriffs Association, the sponsor of the bill. We appreciate the author's work here, would simply say he's very clearly articulated our goal with SB 564. And as he said to the opposition, the analysis does an excellent job laying out that the concerns don't really relate to the thrust of the bill, which is simply to increase the fees and recognize the funding shortfalls that sheriffs offices are facing with their statutory duty to undertake this service of process and the fees they're permitted to collect. Happy to answer any questions, but with that would simply ask for your aye vote.

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

Mr. Chair and Members. Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties in support. Thank you.

Thank you. See no further witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We have a motion from Ms. Papan. Second. From Mr. Connolly. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Ms. Dixon?

Always do. Having come from local government, I think it's Proposition 218 that limits fees for government services that have to be 100% associated with the cost of performing that service at the local level. I'm familiar with that. Does that apply to the fees that we're talking about in this matter?

Thank you, ma'am, through the Chair. I don't believe Prop 218 implicates this in any way because it is specifically based on the service. So these are fees that are charged in connection with the filing of certain legal documents.

Well, the actual cost of the providing the service.

Yes. And in fact, to the author's point, the fees that are collected don't cover the costs of the services being provided.

They just cannot, if my knowledge of that goes back a long time of 218, was that no agency can charge a fee that's over and above the cost of providing the service. And it has to be audited and assured that this is the cost of providing these services that are identified by this fee. So no one's making any money off of this. This is the actual cost of providing the fees. I want to...

This is actually slightly less than the cost of providing the service.

And I would just note for Orange County, so I actually pulled that number in fiscal year 18-19, which is the last full year that there's data available prior to COVID, because obviously COVID affected court filings and things. The Orange County Sheriff's Office collected $2.19 million in revenue for these civil processing fees, but the cost for providing the service was 8.52 million. So there was actually a $6.32 million deficit borne by the county.

Alright, so with this fee increase, as you say, it could even be under the total cost of the full cost of providing the service.

It's getting closer, but...

it's closing that gap. Alright, very good. Thank you very much.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. We have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass. You may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Essayli, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Rivas. Sanchez.

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Roth is next. As Senator Roth approaches, do we have a motion on the consent agenda? Motion from Ms. Papan. Second from Mr. Haney. The consent agenda includes SB 439: Skinner, SB 652: Umberg, SB 748: Roth, SB 790: Padilla, SB 801: Allen, HR 30: Essayli. We have a motion and a second on the consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein? Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli? Aye. Essayli, aye. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Dixon? Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney? Aye. Haney, aye. Kalra? Pacheco? Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan? Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes? On the consent. Reyes, aye. Rivas? Sanchez? Aye. Sanchez, aye.

Consent agenda is out. Thank you. Senator Roth you may proceed, SB 95.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. The Bill updates the California Commercial Code to conform with recommendations made by the Uniform Law Commission focusing primarily on the treatment of digital assets. Uniform Commercial Code and the California Commercial Code have not been updated recently to keep pace with these technological developments, including those in the field of digital assets. The Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute undertook a project to study, consider and formulate amendments to the UCC to address these emerging technology developments.

The study and the drafting committees and their observers included lawyers, business people familiar with commercial law, the technology industry, and consumer matters, among others. These UCC amendments address issues related to sales of and security interests in a wide variety of electronic payment rights, the negotiability of and security interests in virtual currencies, and security interests in electronic money such as central bank digital currencies.

Given California's leading role in technology based industries, these amendments are important to California businesses as the amendments will greatly improve the predictability of transactions involving these digital assets and allow them to be used more confidently and efficiently by the businesses, our California businesses engaged in commerce. Here with me today in support of the Bill are Diane Boyer-Vine and Steven Wise.

Welcome, Ms. Vine. Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Diane Boyer-Vine and I'm here today as a Commissioner on the California Commission on Uniform State Laws. The California Commission is the sponsor of Senate Bill 95 and the Commission is part of the Uniform Law Commission. As Senator Roth stated, in 2022, the ULC approved the 2022 Uniform Commercial Code amendments. And these amendments were a collaborative effort between the ULC and the American Law Institute. The Bill would implement those in California.

As you know, the Uniform Commercial Code is a set of rules governing a wide variety of commercial transactions. And the UCC has been adopted in every U.S. Jurisdiction ensuring that the law governing commercial transactions is substantially the same throughout the country. The UCC was adopted in California through the California Commercial Code.

As Senator Roth said, the UCC and the California Commercial Code have not kept up to date with technology and the markets using and trading in some of these technologies, such as digital assets want definitive commercial law rules for transactions involving those assets. This Bill, through the implementation of the 2022 amendments, would update that law. And we urge your support of SB 95.

Thank you for having me here, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Steve Wise. I'm in private practice in Los Angeles. I've practiced in this area for my entire career, not quite 50 years, and I teach the subject at UCLA Law School. I was a member of the drafting committee on this project. The drafting committee met more times than I can remember with Committee meetings. We had over 350 observers from different industries, consumer industries, borrower groups, lender groups.

The existing commercial codes application to these kinds of digital assets is very inefficient. These kinds of assets are now used widely in commerce. And those in commerce asked the Uniform Law Commission and the American Law Institute to update the law. We believe this law is very fair. It's protective of consumer rights and it will make these transactions far more efficient, effective and certain, thereby reducing costs, we believe, for borrowers and lenders, so strongly urge an aye, and I'd certainly be happy to answer any questions.

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

Thank you. Seeing no further witnesses in support, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll turn it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Mr. Essayli?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a complicated issue. The UCC is not a simple thing. One of the concerns that's been raised, and I have concerns of as well, is does this do these amendments pave the way for a central bank digital currency?

Well, they do not because of course a government has to establish a central bank currency and that would be the role of the Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause. That's how that works. These amendments, I will say that the amendments do establish a category of electronic money because some countries, a few anyway, have designated this digital asset, this digital currency, as the national currency of the government. That's not the case here, obviously.

In fact, digital assets under these sets of amendments are in a new article, Article 12, carved out from the definition of money. And the problem, I mean, I'm not a UCC person and I don't invite anybody to look at my UCC grade in law school. But I will tell you the problem here is that the traditional rules having to do with banking and lending do not apply to these digital assets. And we've seen it in the newspaper.

The digital representation of the asset is the asset itself. When we have a bank account and money, they're digital representations of our bank account, but the asset is still the physical asset. That's not true in the case of Bitcoin and some of these other digital asset types. And so the question is, we had to figure out who has the control and ownership of the digital asset because the platforms of the wallets where these assets were placed thought that they had the control. And in fact, there's quite a notable bankruptcy where the bankruptcy court, because of the ambiguity, awarded the digital asset not to the people who thought they owned it, but to somebody else, the bankrupt entity.

So what these sets of amendments do, of course, is to say that in the digital arena, the person who thinks they have the asset, even though it's parked on a platform, in fact owns the asset, and the platform has to return the asset to the owner, just like a bank has to return the money to the owner.

I get the need to regulate the wild west of digital currency out there. My concern has to do is whether this creates an avenue or a pathway for the Federal Government to create a digital currency. That concerns me because if the government starts getting into the digital currency business, it means that every single transaction will be traceable. The government will have the ability to not only track but control your money.

And this raises large issues concerning privacy interests, what kind of control the government's going to exert over our daily lives. So my question is, why not include some protections or restrictions prohibiting federal digital currency in here? I just think cash is a bedrock component of our American system, and if the government has the ability to trace every single transaction, it is problematic. I would say.

You know, we don't control what the Federal Government does, and I suspect I'll defer to the experts.

Then why do we need this? Why do we need to do the UCC if it doesn't matter?

Well, the goal of the UCC is to standardize commercial transactions across all the states in the United States. And I suspect that if you have countries that have taken as a government as their government currency form of digital assets, you have to include that somewhere in the UCC in order to allow commerce to proceed, international commerce to proceed, inside the 50 states of the United States.

And that's why there was a definition included of electronic money to deal with those nations that have decided to adopt digital currency or a digital asset as their government currency. That is not the United States, and that's up to Congress and the President to do that. And that's a little bit out of our control.

But in the meantime, we have to deal with the issues that we face with digital assets today, and those include, for example, how to transfer a digital asset and how do you determine who owns it. And that's why the definition of controllable electronic records was included, not as included as money, but as a digital asset to allow people to transfer these digital assets with reliability.

So if you have control, whether it's a digital key or whatever the experts tell me you use to control a digital asset, you can transfer it. I can transfer it to Assembly Member Essayli with confidence, and Assembly Member Essayli can, with confidence, accept it and know that you have whatever that digital representation is. The other problem is securitizing a digital asset. If you're going to lend against it, how do you do it? Because you're not holding it.

So the only way to do it prior to these amendments was to file a financing statement. I believe we used to file them with the Secretary of State. And you don't really know who has priority. These amendments deal with that and provide a way to securitize an asset. If you have control over it, you own it. You have priority.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. My concern has to do with whether the Federal Government's going to get into the digital currency space. And I ask my colleagues to think about this. I mean, we prioritize privacy in a lot of issues. I know a lot of you concerned with reproductive rights. And so just think of the ramifications of every transaction in the United States being recordable and traceable, and the government can track those.

I don't think we should be outsourcing our deliberation, with no offense, to a third party organization like the UCC. And I would support this if there was an express prohibition to the Federal Government adopting a central digital currency. But with that, I thank you, Senator, and appreciate the comments.

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

Partially just to follow up on Mr. Essayli. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I mean, with all the controversy about Bitcoin, and Congress has been holding hearings on digital currency which have shown that they are really ether, and there's really no value to that. So in the midst of Congress still determining how something like cryptocurrency is regulated, how do we know now what to do in terms of how it's defined? Because it all just went poof. And are we getting ahead of it right now?

Where does it, in terms of Congress, as you say, Congress makes these rules, whether it's a digital asset, has that been determined to be a credible, substantive asset if it's based on cryptocurrency, I don't know where that exists.

I don't know that I can answer that other than, as I understand it, the asset is the digital representation of the asset. So you say it is what it is, and I agree that it is what it is. But the real problem from a consumer protection issue is we've seen in the news that if we don't adopt some of these rules to define who controls and who owns the digital asset and whether a platform that's holding it.

And I don't profess to understand, you know, how old I am, what a platform is. But apparently there are these things out there, or digital wallets, where you hold these things to say that the holder in the wallet. The wallet has to return the digital asset to the person who thinks they own it. Just like a bank has to return your money to you.

Assembly Member, if you say, give me my money. And I understand Assembly Members Essayli's issues about the central bank and central bank digital currency and whether Congress is going to adopt Bitcoin as the national currency of the United States, I have absolutely no idea. But there are these underlying issues that exist out there that we need to deal with. How do you get a security interest in a digital asset? How can you transfer it with reliability and confidence?

So if the thing has been stolen, but you get it, the rules now say with this that if you don't know about the fact that it's stolen, it's yours. These basic rules that we operate in, in the commercial environment today that allow us to operate with confidence, we need to make sure those apply to the digital assets. And there are significant issues, and I'm not minimizing the issues that Assembly Member Essayli raised, but those are a little bit out of our control. And what we can control are the consumer protection points that are embedded in these UCC amendments.

Well, I agree. I think that is commendable. I'm just wondering, as you're speaking, that the world is still unsettled about what to do with cryptocurrency and how to regulate it and is it real. And here we are going to be codifying regulations and laws for the State of California, therefore giving it the imprimatur that it's legitimate and that it's sound and solid financial instrument, and it may be determined, or it's in the process of being determined.

Many of these firms that have represented themselves to be purveyors of cryptocurrency no longer exist. So I just don't know if we're ahead of the game. I think it's commendable that if there is eventually clarification about that at the federal level, but right now we're legitimizing crypto digital transactions that I don't even know if the federal law covers them. Does the federal law cover crypto transactions?

I'm not sure I can answer that. I do know that we do have a California commercial code, and the UCC has been adopted in California for decades. But there is ambiguity in our California commercial code, and that's what adopting these amendments will attempt to clear up. I probably should stop talking since I'm sure I've exhausted my...

I think we've kind of gotten to the point. If there's any other questions on this. We'll go to Ms. Reyes. I think this point has probably been beaten to death.

Senator Roth, I want to thank you for bringing us into the 21st century. You're not creating a new currency. You're just providing consumer protections for this currency. And I sincerely appreciate that you're upgrading this. I think this is important. UCC has to be, we have to amend it to keep up with whatever it is that's happening, whatever has been created, so that we provide those protections for the consumer. And I want to thank you for providing these consumer protections through these amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Papan. Second. From Ms Reyes. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Hopefully a brief close, but go ahead.

Thank you for your patience. Mr. Chair and Members, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

The motion is do pass. I'd ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Not voting. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Not voting. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Aye. Papan, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Sanchez.

Your bill is out. Thank you, Senator Roth.

Thank you, Members.

Next up is Senator Menjivar, SB 457.

I'm not used to sitting.

Welcome. You may proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Assembly members. I'm here to talk about SB 457, which is looking to just do a technical cleanup. Currently, right now, unaccompanied homeless youth are able to consent to medical care and dental care. Again, these are unaccompanied homeless youth we're talking about only. In the State of California, from the 2022 point-in-time count, there's approximately 544 unaccompanied homeless youth in the State of California. And that's the group we're looking to provide vision care with SB 457. So SB 457 is just looking to do this technical fix to allow 15 and older unaccompanied homeless youth to be able to consent to vision care. Right now, there's ambiguity around this. Unaccompanied homeless youth are being turned away. And we recognize that the schools are not able to address every single vision care that they need.

A study from 2017 has states that school eye care exams are only covering, are only catching 4% of the eye test needed for children, and they're missing up to 75% of children with vision problems. And we all know if you can't see, I see individuals here with glasses. If you can't see, you won't be able to be successful, especially in school. And that can in turn, perhaps that child can be deemed as having behavioral problems, but when in fact, they just need the proper vision care. So I'm asking for SB 457 to be on the books to ensure that those who are 15 and older who are homeless and unaccompanied. And I'll repeat that because this is only about those who do not have parental guidance or guardian to turn to. With that, Sir Chair, I'd like to turn to my witnesses.

Thank you. We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. Second from Ms Papan. Thank you may proceed.

Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing the California Coalition for Youth. I'm pleased to support this bill and thank the committee and the analysis for its analysis. Last fall, we were doing a training with our legal aid attorneys where this issue came up as really a concern around the ambiguity in the law and the lack of clarity for our legal aid attorneys and working with being able to provide vision services for our young people experiencing homelessness. So this is really just trying to clarify that we can do this, as the senator noted, and really it's important because we know the dropout rates for our homeless young people are actually 17.4%, which is much higher than our general population of young people. So just ask for your support today. Thank you.

Kristine Shultz with the California Optometric Association, here in support of the bill. You know, the only instances I'm aware of of this occurring are referrals from homeless shelters directly. So we know these children are homeless. Appreciate any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you. See no other witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from the committee? Mr. Essayli.

I'm really troubled by what I hear. Are you saying there are homeless kids that go to school in homeless shelters and the government allows this? They're not providing them services or getting them into foster care or providing them with guardianships. I don't understand. Is this like a thing like we allow teachers and schools know kids are homeless and they allow this to continue?

Well, I know this isn't a surprise. We have unhoused individuals in the State of California. Of that, we do have housed homeless individuals. 544, as I mentioned, was the last point-in-count. We have youth who have been emancipated as well, who this would also cover, I think if your question was if they're going to school.

No, my question is if they're emancipated, they have the legal right to do this. My question is they're minors, so the government has an obligation to take care of them. So I don't understand how a school, knowing that a kid is homeless, allows that to continue without engaging CPS or county social services to get them off the street. I'm a little troubled with the complacency that it's okay to have kids on the street, and we're more worried about getting them glasses than getting them off the streets.

The complacency just because the bill is being introduced by one of our colleagues in the Senate. She's talking about an issue and I think that for my colleague to say that there's a complacency by the senator with the introduction of this bill, I think is out of order.

Mr. Essayli, hold on. The point of order is well taken. Mr. Essayli, the topic of this bill has been stated clearly both by the author and in the materials. If you're speaking on homelessness in general, that's not the topic of the bill. It'd be proper topic for you to bring up during budgetary hearings, a whole lot of other hearings, but I just ask to continue to function as an effective committee that you would stick to the merits of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments are directed in our policy-making in general. It wasn't directed at the Senator, and I do appreciate the concerns.

But Mr. Essayli, let me interrupt you just for a second there, too. The point of this committee hearing with these bills is to talk about this bill. So while you may not have been directing it directly at her as a criticism of her, it still is off-topic to the topic of this bill. So just ask you, you've always been given wide leeway, but just ask you to stick to the topic of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're here to discuss policy. So I guess my question is if we're going to allow minors to seek vision care, should we not have a requirement, for example, that the providing doctor make a report, be a mandated reporter to report them to make sure they get into care? My problem isn't with the bill. I don't mind getting vision care to minors, but I don't think it's enough, I guess is my concern. And, Mr. Chair, with all respect, I mean, we are a policy committee. We should be able to engage in ideas on how to improve this. And so I guess that would be my question. Why not have some safeguards, some mechanism in there to help these kids get off the street when they're seeking these services?

Assemblymember, I would say that's a great bill idea for yourself if you want to work on it in the fall. But right now my bill is just focused on vision care. The Chair mentioned this is a grander scheme. This is a bigger-picture idea. With each year we all introduce legislation that attacks an issue little by little. This is just another barrier that our unhoused youth are facing. And I welcome any single member to introduce more legislation to uplift our homeless youth.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Pacheco.

I have a question to the author. So my understanding of the bill I know homeless minors was mentioned, but my understanding of the bill is for all those individuals who are 15 and older and who are maybe managing their own finances. So they would be for, I know, emancipated minors. So my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it would of course be for homeless individuals, but it would be overall for all minors who are pretty much handling their own affairs, maybe emancipated and now need to get vision care and they don't have a parental authority to grant that permission. Am I understanding it correctly?

That is correct. So I did mention and you point to that Assemblymember, is this will also benefit our emancipated youth as well. And I'd turn to my expert for any other additional comments there.

I'd say that, Kim Lewis through the Chair. I would just say that it also clarifies that the young person is living separate and apart from their parents. So there's a second qualifier on that as well.

And thank you and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward.

Any other questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. The motion is do pass. You may close.

Maybe to light in something else. I just respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Despite your attempt at humor, we will still enjoy an eye recommendation. I'd ask the clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Aye. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Pacheco. Aye. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Aye. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Sanchez.

Congratulations. Your bill is out. Thank you. Next up, Senator Wahab and I would ask Assemblymember Boerner to up to the final item. Ask her to please make her way over here and any members of the committee who are not here to please come over because we're rapidly approaching our last item. Senator Wahab, welcome. Long time no see.

Right?

Ready? Alright. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm here to present SB 463, which removes the automatic presumption that inability of a parent to participate regularly in court ordered treatment programs is sufficient to deny reunification of a parent and child. Under the current law, a parent or guardian's failure to participate regularly and make progress in court ordered treatment programs is used as a baseline evidence of unfitness, often denying family reunification. Unless the parent or guardian can produce evidence to the contrary, the court must assume that the parent or guardian is unfit solely based on their performance and participation in treatment programs.

Lack of compliance may be a red flag, but there are many reasons unrelated to fitness that a parent or guardian might not be able to fully participate in a treatment program, such as the inability to take time off work, the lack of and availability of treatment programs, long wait lists, illness, and the inability to afford the program.

Child welfare research and recent legislative trends suggest current risk to a child should always be the analysis, not a parent's level of compliance. Additionally, many marginalized groups have fear and generational trauma around the child welfare system, making them less likely to be compliant or cooperative. SB 463 eliminates a requirement for courts to begin with the assumption that the parent is unfit solely because of the lack of participation or progress in a treatment program.

It strengthens the judicial discretion and allows the court to make more holistic determinations when deciding family reunifications. Testifying today is Hilary Kerrigan, the Lead Deputy Counsel, County Counsel for Santa Clara County's Child Welfare Unit.

Thank you. You may proceed.

Thank you, Chair, Members, and staff, and thank you to Senator Wahab for carrying SB 463. The County of Santa Clara is very proud to be co-sponsoring this bill. When a child has been removed from their home, review hearings are held every six months, and the court must return the child to the home unless a showing is made that doing so poses a substantial risk of detriment to the child.

Under current law, if the government shows that the parent failed to attend required classes, a facially sufficient case has been made that reunification would be unsafe. It's then the parent's burden to rebut that presumption, which can be difficult to accomplish with the limited resources of court appointed counsel. As the committee analysis notes, the presumption is outdated and simplistic.

It's outdated that it traces back to the 1980s when probation officers, not social workers, workers supervised families, and the focus then was on punishing parents rather than on protecting the children. And the child welfare system has since been overhauled to prioritize the well being of children and to encourage reunification when it can safely be accomplished. The presumption is also simplistic in that it conflates noncompliance with danger. Ultimately, compliance can only tell us so much about safety.

Just as it would be facile to presume the home is unsafe simply because the parent attended every class, so too is it overly simplistic to equate the parent's insufficient participation with a risk of detriment to the child. Doing so overlooks the possibility of valid explanations and discounts the parent's other efforts. With permanent separation of families at stake, we should not be content to rely on such intellectual shortcuts. The results are inequitable. Low income families and families of color are overrepresented in the child welfare system.

In some counties, the parent must pay for services themselves or the classes may be offered only during the ordinary work week. This puts financial struggles, struggling parents in the predicament of having to choose between making ends meet and complying with their case plan. Eliminating the presumption removes a thumb on the scale against the most disadvantaged families and restores the court's discretion to engage in a holistic analysis. Thank you for considering this bill. I'm happy to answer any questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Yeah. Appreciate this bill and would be honored to be a co-author.

Thank you. Ms. Dixon?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate what you're trying to do. Help me understand what other evidence of rehabilitation by the parents would be considered in lieu of instead of the parents participating in any program.

You know, the genuine truth is that this will be for judicial discretion. One of the concerns is that a parent can actually state that one the availability of the program is not regularly available. We know that in some parts of California certain programs are not available. The cost or the attempt is another. But one of the concerns with having this currently as the automatic presumption that the parent is unfit is what we're trying to target. And the judge would be able to see what is the effort that the parent is making. Also the information provided by social workers and other individuals... those would be factors.

Those would be factors brought into that decision. Alright. Because, obviously, we all care ultimately about the welfare of the child and sometimes the parents may not be the best place for the child. So there are other factors that judicial discretion would determine.

Yes.

Okay. Alright. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other question... Mr. Kalra?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. I think this is a much more real world look at what happens in reality. I know when I was public defender had a lot of clients that had a lot of, they had 10 different things they had to do at one time. And sometimes there was not a great explanation, but oftentimes there was. But when you have these kinds of very kind of black and white rules that prejudice parents, I think it just further leads to the delay or outright refusal to kind of unify, which is ultimately the goal. So appreciate it and also would like the opportunity to be joined as a co-author as well.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Motion from Mr. Kalra. Second from Ms. Reyes. Thank you very much. Senator, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to Human Services. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. No. Essayli, no. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, no.

Your bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

And then our final item. Welcome, Ms. Boerner.

Hello. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. HR 37 would recognize the 51st anniversary of Title IX protections against sex based discriminations in schools and would urge California to continue to work together to achieve its goals of more equal opportunities for our youth. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Well done. Do we have any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We have a motion from Ms. Papan. Second from Mr. Kalra. Any questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Thank you for this great bill. As someone who raised two daughters as single dad, I'm particularly pleased to support this today. So with that, I'd ask the Clerk to please call the roll. The motion is be adopted.

Maienschein. Aye. Maienschein, aye. Essayli. Essayli, aye. Connolly. Connolly, aye. Dixon. Dixon, aye. Haney. Haney, aye. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Pacheco. Pacheco, aye. Papan. Papan, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye. Sanchez. Sanchez, aye.

Sanchez, aye.

Your bill is out. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Well done to this Committee. In under an hour. Great job, everybody. So you have the rest of your morning to yourself. We have an item on call. Let's do that and then we'll do add ons. The item on call is item number one, SB 80. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

That bill is out. Now we will go through all the items. If you need to add on. If not, you feel free to leave. The consent agenda. Ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Next is item number two, SB 95, Roth. Clerk, please call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Next is item number three, SB 457. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

Item number five, SB 564. Ask the Clerk to call the roll.

Kalra. Kalra, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Rivas. Rivas, aye.

We have everybody on item number six. So we have everybody. Congratulations, everybody. Today's meeting of the Judiciary Committee is adjourned.