Senate Standing Committee on Health

The Senate Committee on Health will come to order. We are looking for our authors. Senator Wahab. Senator Umberg, you are needed in Health Committee. Two bills. Be out of here in less than 30 minutes.

The Senate Committee on Health has done so much work, we're going to take a quick recess.

All right, we are back. Today we have two bills on the agenda. It's going to be SB 381, file item one and file item two, SB 490. I see that the Senator is here for the second file item, but I'm going to give it to my Vice Chair real quick.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to thank you for giving me the opportunity for this personal point of privilege. I just wanted to thank you for your leadership as Chair. I know this is your last Committee hearing. You'll still be on the Committee.

Just to say how much I appreciate you, your voice, your advocacy on behalf of the people of California and really digging into the issue and being fair about it. We haven't always agreed, but you've always been willing to listen and to give everyone the credit, the time to have real dialogue about the importance of healthcare in California. And I just wanted to thank you for that.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Senator Padilla.

Madam Chair, I want to echo those sentiments. It's been an honor to serve under your leadership, and I know we'll continue to collaborate together on this Committee. You're a class act. The thing that I most respect and love about you, Madam Chair, is your heart. Your heart is never in doubt. And where your focus and your priorities are never in doubt, and you fight for them vigorously. You've done a magnificent job. And so thank you.

Thank you, friend. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Umberg, you may proceed.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. These guys are acting like you're going somewhere. You're not going anywhere. You're going to be a leader in this space for many, many years to come. And I am grateful for your efforts on behalf of all Californians in this health space. And as I said, you're not going anywhere.

This is going to be a lifelong passion. I know it. So having said that, I'd like to present SB 490. First of all, thank you to chief consultant Reyes Diaz for your work on this thing this year, last year, and the year before. As a matter of fact, three is the charm.

This is a bill that addresses some of the challenges that we have with respect to sober living homes, unlicensed sober living homes. Unfortunately, DHCS cannot meet the timelines that have been established and they are inadequately staffed in order to basically provide Californians the sort of confidence they need with respect to sober living homes.

The Department, I think it's a capacity issue, has often failed to conduct site visits and follow ups to ensure illegal operations have been stopped. And sadly, where there's no enforcement or very little enforcement, what happens is a proliferation of practices that are not consistent with the law, not consistent with basically being good neighbors.

In one example highlighted in the audit, DHCS substantiated an allegation that an unlicensed facility was unlawfully providing services. However, the audit found that no indication that the Department followed up to verify the facility's claim that it ceased operations, nor did it conduct a site visit to confirm compliance.

Per the recommendation of the State's auditor's report, SB 490 institutes a timeline to initiate investigations of unlicensed facility allegations within 10 days, complete investigations within 60 days, issue violation notices within 10 days of completing the investigation and conduct a mandatory follow up site visit to ensure unlawful services have stopped. Stop.

If DHCS fails to meet these timelines, cities and counties can work with DHCS to enforce licensure laws and protect public safety and health. With me testifying in support of the bill today is our very own Garden Grove City Council Member Arianna Estegi and Carolyn Grinder for technical assistance from the League of Cities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Carolyn welcome back. Thank you. Name Twin Yes. You have a combination of five minutes total.

Wonderful. Good afternoon, Chair Menjivar and Committee Members. My name is Ariana Estegi. I am a council member for the City of Garden Grove and I'm here to support SB490, a common sense bill that provides communities like mine with reassurance that investigations of unlawful residential recovery operations will be handled swiftly and thoroughly.

Residential recovery housing provides a range of benefits to California's most vulnerable residents and it's critical that their needs are prioritized over profits. To do this, we must ensure strict compliance with state licensing laws administered by the Department of Healthcare Services, which are essential to safeguarding the well being of individuals seeking recovery.

Under the current law, any drug and alcohol treatment facility that provides recovery treatment or detoxification services must obtain a valid license from the Department before operating. The Department is also responsible for receiving and investigating complaints about unlicensed sober living homes that are operating in violation of state licensure laws. This is where we have some friction.

In a recent state audit revealed that the Department has not consistently investigated or followed up on allegations of facilities illegally providing or advertising treatment services the failure has allowed unlicensed sober living homes to continue providing illegal services in residential neighborhoods without state oversight or accountability for long periods of time.

SB 490 would implement the Auditor's recommendations by requiring the Department to meet specific timelines for investigating allegations of unlicensed treatment services. If the Department fails to meet these deadlines, the counties would then partner and collaborate with our local government authorities to conduct site visits and enforce licensure laws.

The collaboration would allow the state to leverage the local capacity to respond swiftly to these violations, ensure the compliance and better protect public health and safety. It also requires that the Department conduct follow up visits which are essential to maintaining this compliance, and investigate other facilities run by the same operator to ensure that they're also in compliance.

We are strengthening oversight with this bill and ensuring that recovery housing meets appropriate standards of care, improving treatment outcomes and supporting healthier communities because when these facilities are located in our residential neighborhoods, they affect our residents and the neighbors alike.

One of the most frequent conversations that was brought to my attention when I was out on the campaign trail and meeting my constituents face to face were concerns over the increased number of these facilities in our community, the increased calls for for services, and concerns about quality of life.

Their neighbors felt powerless for the obstacles that we faced in trying to address their concerns over the people living in these facilities and our neighborhoods. In my city alone we have several cases that are open involving allegations of unlawful operations.

One of the families that I represent has come to our City Council meetings and even expressed wanting to leave the home that they thought would be their forever home because of the number of repeating incidents and not feeling like they're being heard or that there are solutions for them and for their neighbors that are suffering with the disease of addiction.

This bill would remedy the issue of having this deadlock by allowing DHCS to partner with us, ensuring that our neighbors all have access to quality of care and a good quality of life. I urge all of you guys to please support this bill. Thank you.

And Caroline Grinder on behalf of the League of California Cities which is proud to sponsor SB490. I'm here to answer any technical questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Anyone now would like to record their Me too. In support of this bill. Please step forward. Name, organization and your position.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Elisa Arcediocono on behalf of the cities of Costa Mesa and Mission Viejo in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Any formal opposition, come on up. You also have five minutes.

Thank you. Chair and Senators for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Amer Rashid, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the County Behavioral Health Directors of California Association of California, representing the leaders of the public behavioral health agencies that serve the mental health and substance use disorder needs of the medi cal uninsured and underinsured populations.

CBHDA respectfully stands in opposition to SB490. SB490 instructs the Department of Healthcare Services to investigate sober living homes providing unlicensed substance use disorder treatment, an activity they should not be engaged in and one that the Department already has jurisdiction to investigate.

The issues that the author discusses are rooted in private sober living facilities which advertise detoxification services or other residential SUD treatments.

That these residences are not licensed by anyone, the state or counties to provide operating residential services without a license is a matter that would fall under the jurisdiction of the state to investigate and remedy, not the county.

As county Behavioral health has no jurisdiction or authority over these unlicensed private residences because counties would have no jurisdiction over these private entities. The bill would expose counties to significant liability risk and a potentially unfunded workload increase for county behavior health agencies. And it is for these reasons that CBHDA respectfully opposes SB490.

And thank the Chair and Senators for your time today.

Thank you for your testimony. Others that like to record their me-toos in opposition of this bill. Okay, seeing none. We're going to bring it back for discussions or questions. Senator Rubio.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that this bill has been before us, right? And I remember probably seeing two or three, maybe more versions of this. And last year, if I believe I remember correctly, passed successfully, overwhelmingly.

Can you just give me a couple of sentence on the difference between the one we had last year and this year so I can be clear on the difference here?

Senator, before you answer, I'm going to establish quorum right now. Committee Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

We have a quorum. Senator, you may answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Senator Rubio. There have been a number of different iterations. Let me just focus. I'm going to turn to Ms. Grinder and maybe she can fully elucidate all the various steps that we've taken. But let me just explain.

What exists before you now is that when there is a purported violation and someone reports that violation, they can report it to DHCS, they can report it to their city, their county, and of course, at that point in time, DHCS can investigate. That resolves, at least resolves the issue as to who's going to initially take responsibility.

And if they can't or they don't, or for whatever reason, then the city has an opportunity to ask DHCS, hey, can we come in? Can we take a look to see if there's a violation? If at any point the city says, no, we don't want to do that, or DHCS says no, then it's not done.

And they're free to. They're actually not free, but they do continue to operate in illegally. And so that's the bill that's before you today. Earlier versions did not give the same kind of discretionary authority that exists in this bill. And if you don't mind, Madam Chair, let me turn to Ms. Grinder if.

She'S got more information, any additional information.

Senator, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thank you.

Yeah. To the Senator's point, previous versions included, allowed cities to go in and do these inspections.

When we had heard from our residents that there were concerns and the Department hadn't responded for promptly, we heard feedback that maybe cities weren't the right local government entity to do that inspection and that counties have the behavioral health expertise to really understand what these violations might look like.

We have no intention of having that be a mandate on counties or requiring counties to do that.

It's more if there's a really egregious public health and safety risk in the county, and the cities are interested in elevating that to DHCs and offering their capacity to go in, respond promptly, there'd be a pathway for them to do that. So that's our intent. Happy to work with the opposition to make that more clear.

So I heard no mandate. Right. So I'm just wondering what the issue is here. So I will move forward and move. The bill when appropriate. Thank you. Any other questions here, Senator Azo?

Yeah. Obviously, you know, I'm supportive of addressing the issue of specialty facilities that are operating illegally. I also have, you know, sympathetic to county concerns about not being. It's not their jurisdiction. Right. And the pressure they would feel to investigate the facilities. I'm sympathetic that they wouldn't have the additional resources to do this.

And they may, you know, there's, I'm sure, a whole string of issues. What is your expectation as far as these issues? How do you think they would impact local government, the counties especially, with what they're raising? How do you.

Can you elaborate on why you still believe this is the right way to do it because local governments are going to, then it's kind of like kicking it over to them. I know it's not requiring them to do it, but it's still kind of kicking it over because they're the ones closest to the communities.

They're the ones that communities are going to say, hey, you can now you have the power. Right. So how would you address these concerns that they have?

So the concern is. I think the concern is if we give them the authority to make that decision, that then there'll be pressure to actually act. And so the counties. The counties, right. So the county can simply say, no, we don't want to do it. I mean, that's.

We don't have the capacity, we don't have the resources, we don't have the expertise. We just don't want to do it. And there's nothing at that point that ends the conversation with respect to the county. So to the extent that a county doesn't have the resources, they can turn it down.

Now, I get that, you know, county officials, I mean, we're all elected officials. When our constituents come to us and say there's a big problem, then we often feel like there's something we should do about it.

And I get that part that right now they say, well, we don't have the authority, we don't have the capacity, nor can we do it by law. What we're doing is just giving them. We're sort of removing that excuse. So if the state.

I'm sorry, Senator, if the state can't. Doesn't for whatever reasons, but we expect the county to be able to do it.

No, we don't expect the counties necessarily to be able to do it. We expect the county, if the county chooses to do something that they now are enabled to do it. So, yes, I do think that DHCS does not have adequate resources.

And to the extent that, for example, a county, Los Angeles county, says, you know what, this is a problem, and we want to, on behalf of our constituents, on behalf of the residents of Los Angeles county, we actually want to take some action. This simply enables them. Doesn't mandate that they take an action.

Yeah.

Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And first of all, I want to be very clear from the onset here that we need to treatment and recovery housing in California. But the substance abuse disorder is a real thing, and access to care matters, especially for medi cal patients. But I also represent residential neighborhoods where these facilities operate.

And I hear regularly from constituents that these are. And these are not people that are opposed to recovery or to even those recovery facilities in their neighborhoods. They want to be good neighbors and they want people getting help.

But they're often, and I know we all hear this, if you have any facilities in your district, they're frustrated when facilities appear to be operating without clear oversight, when complaints go unanswered, and they too often do, or when it's unclear who's responsible for the enforcement. So I think this is a necessary bill.

In my district, we've seen situations where neighbors call the county, county refers them to state, state refers them back to county, and it's this vicious circle that is ever frustrating for my constituents, and it really doesn't help anyone. Not residents, not patients, not officers. And that's why I appreciate the intent in what this bill is doing.

It's clear timelines, clear jurisdiction and stronger oversight. I'd love to be added as a co author if you would have me. But with that, I do have some questions, and you answered some of them previously with Senator Durazo's questions. So I'll skip down here to the two that. The other two that I have here in your bill.

Once a violation is substantiated, is there any expected role for local law enforcement? Is that. Would that just be be directed by county or. This bill simply says that it can be.

Well, then it's up to DHCS. Unless there's a clear, you know, a criminal violation. So, for example, if they're simply operating outside the guidelines, then DHCS is responsible to take some action if they are engaging. Let's say there's selling of illegal substances in the home. That's crime. And then the county and. Or the city could step in.

Okay.

And finally, is there anything in the bill that is going to track, or, I'm sorry, not track, is going to allow or how are outcomes going to be able to be communicated back to our constituents when a violation has been, you know, substantiated or not substantiated?

There's currently no requirement of reporting. But that's a great idea, Senator Valdez. So let me. Ms. Grinder is going to correct me.

She was shaking her head over there. Yeah, well, no, I just wanted to mention we ran a bill on that last year that's now going to require DHCs to notify complainants when their investigation has concluded. So there will not that that past last session, that will now be existing law.

So the hope here would be they would do the investigations and then that law would then require the Department to reach out to the Complainant and notify them that that's concluded. Excellent. Thank you.

But your suggestion is still well taken. That doesn't actually create the data so that we can assess what changes are occurring. And that's. We have some trepidation of appropriations, but we'll certainly consider that. Thank you.

DHCS website does have. Madam Vice Chair, the information, the outcomes of violations. I know maybe, you know, we. I would always hate to tell people go to this website and just check it out. But it is on a website for.

The public to check only if it was substantiated.

Yeah. The outcome of it. I'd like an opportunity for you to respond the opposition because you know, the bill states that this is only if the county decides they want to step in. The county would have to reach out to DHCS and says like to request for our ability to go inside. It's not a mandate.

The county would have to look at their capability to see if they can take this on. With that being said, why are we still treating this as an unfunded mandate?

Sure. So I think a couple of things. First, as was noted earlier, there is going to be increased pressure, I think for counties to do these investigations. That will likely be an outcome that takes place as a result of this.

And so that will increase the pressure and impact on counties to then investigate something outside of their jurisdiction and assess their own internal resources to be able to do that if those pressures arise. What the bill doesn't do, you know, it provides these timelines for DHCs, but it does not provide that capacity remedy to the Department.

Instead, as kind of noted, it pushes it over to us who have no jurisdiction with these facilities whatsoever. So whether or not it's mandated, there is a central policy question of why, you know, how appropriate is it to have county behavioral health agencies be the investigative authority where they don't have jurisdiction.

I hear that and I can definitely see some value in that. Senator Umberg, I could live happily if I never see one of these bills in health Committee ever again.

Me too.

I'll second that. It's been a while.

You can resolve that by passing it out a Committee today.

So with that we mirrored this to the previous versions and making sure the timelines aligned to that. I think one of the biggest things that we had issues before, it's not in this bill. You want to make sure that people with the background are able to go in.

I recognize there is going to be that social pressure coming onto counties without additional. Additional support. But DHCIS is not going to always approve every single request. They're going to take every request into consideration and see if there's capacity.

There's going to be opportunities for the counties to have conversations with DHCS during the request, during that process and move forward from there. Senator Oswald?

Yeah, I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Could I just ask. If there was. Something that you could change or do you have amendments that are not that, you know, wouldn't completely. Got the bill. Got the bill. Are there any particular things that can be worked on at this moment moving forward?

I think we're certainly always willing to have those conversations with the author's office and with the sponsors. I think as it relates to. To particularly the jurisdiction piece, that's going to be our primary concern. And so any language where we can shift that focus.

You know, we certainly want to support increased investigations over facilities that are not supposed to be providing this treatment. That is why we don't contract with those facilities to begin with. Right. And why we don't have jurisdiction over them. And so we certainly empathize with that goal.

But that's a capacity issue, as was noted in the author's speech. And shifting that over to us doesn't solve that. And so we are willing to explain or, excuse me, to discuss other alternatives to see if there's a way for the bill to keep moving outside of our opposition.

Sure. We're always open to. We've spent quite a bit of time on this issue. We're always open to continuing conversation. This is. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Well, not yet. We've opened the floodgates to round two of questions. So we are going to. Senator Dr. Weber Pearson.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Senator Umberg, for bringing this over for us. I'm just having a really hard time finding in the language where the shift goes to the counties, where is that in the actual bill, that if the Department can't do it, it's automatically going to be shifted over to the counties.

Sorry. So not that it would automatically be shifted. I think what it does is, as the Senator explained, it creates a pathway. So when the Department doesn't follow the specific timeline, the counties can then potentially step in and investigate themselves. Right.

Where our concern raises is that with this pathway being developed and without anything really pushing DHCS to meet that timeline, that new timeline that is presented in this bill, there will be increased pressures then to turn and have the counties do the investigations, which should be at the responsibility and jurisdiction of the state.

But the only way the counties would do the investigation is if the counties initiated their request to do it. Am I correct? So if the counties didn't have the bandwidth, the expertise, the interest, then from what I'm reading, then they wouldn't request the Department to take it over. Right.

I mean, or is there another way that it could fall back on the counties?

I think with the level of stigma on these particular types of facilities that are taking place at a local level, we're anticipating that there would be increased pressure from the community itself towards the county to do this. And so you're right in that the county would theoretically be engaging with the Department directly to begin that process.

But what we're looking at is now that this process would exist, and with the increased stigma and pressures coming from the community to rightfully investigate facilities that are acting wrongly, that pressure will end up falling on us rather than on the existing investigating authority, with jurisdiction being the state, because of those local social pressures.

Okay, so what we're referring to is more of a theoretical risk, because when I'm hearing it being discussed, it sounds like it's more of an actual thing that we know is going to happen. And we have the data that says, or the language that says, if the Department doesn't do it, then it automatically shifts to the counties.

And so that's where I'm really confused by the language that we're using, because it doesn't really align with what I'm saying in the bill. I think it's always good to think about what the possibilities could be.

But until we actually know that, and I was talking with some other people about actually having a little bit more data around this issue, how much of an issue it is, how much more bandwidth would we need? I don't know how many complaints go and what the like. I don't have that information yet.

Have no idea what will happen with this bill, you know, given what happened with it before. But I think we should figure out some of those data points before, you know, we're more definitive in our language as to what will happen. Thank you.

I think the only data we have right now is that it seems to be concentrated in the OC because only OC Members present these bills. That's the only. I'm not an OC Member. I'd be happier. Much, much, much love, Senator Umberg. No, much love. I think, Senator Ahmberg, you now have the opportunity to close.

So I appreciate that there is a concentration of these unlicensed facilities in Orange County, but it exists in the Inland Empire, it exists in Los Angeles county, it exists all over the state.

And I don't think there's anyone, including DHCS, can possibly argue that these facilities are operating within the bounds of the law, that some are, but many, many, many are not. And in fact, DHCS, one of their concerns is that they don't have capacity because they get so many complaints that they basically can't investigate those complaints.

And so this is a situation where we're told we've got a problem. And this problem, I think, is pervasive. It's not just in Orange County. We got a problem with unlicensed and other facilities that are operating outside. So what are you going to do about it?

Well, what DHCS is, or, I'm sorry, the counties are saying, look, it don't possibly provide a pathway, as Senator Weber Pearson just alluded to, for us to remedy the situation, because once you provide that pathway, then we have to respond to that. So this is the analogy.

Let's say there's someone who routinely speeds through your neighborhood all the time, creates this incredibly dangerous condition, and you call your city council, you call the police, and they say I'm sorry, we're not authorized to issue traffic violations. We can't author.

In fact, we don't want that authority because if we have that authority, then citizens are going to ask us to enforce the law. And we really. We don't want to enforce the law because we don't want that pressure to enforce the law because. I don't know. Because we just don't want to do that for whatever reason.

So all this does, all this does is simply say counties, you can ask. If DHCS says no, no, no, you can't go forward, then you can't go forward. That ends the conversation.

But it doesn't necessarily end the conversation with those who are impacted because then they can continue to advocate both at the county level and the state level and through their city council as well and through the legislators to have something happen. That's all this bill does. Urgent. I vote.

Thank you so much. Please call. The roll motion in front of us is do pass and we refer to the Committee and appropriations. Can I get a motion for the bill? You did, Senator. Rubio.

[Roll call]

That currently enjoys a vote of. 8 to 0.

8 to 0. We're going to put it on call for missing Members. Thank you so much. Thank you. Madam Chair, Senator Rohab has file item. I thought we saw her. Center Wahab has file item 1. SB381. You're ready when you are.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee staff on their work on this important bill, and I would like to accept the suggested amendments that we agreed upon. In California, adoptees do not have access to their original birth certificate because the certificate is sealed at adoption, making it inaccessible to the adoptee.

Sealing original birth certificates for adoptees dates back nearly a century, 1935, to be specific, to protect adoptees and adoptive families from societal stigma surrounding their status and not necessarily to protect birth parents.

Preventing access to an original birth certificate has potential negative health implications as an adoptee does not have access to information related to their birth family or health history. I also want to highlight that they do not have access to this information that also, as I like to describe it, leaves a big black hole in their soul.

They would like to know where they come from. It can also lead to mental health and identity issues as it potentially prevents an adoptee from knowing their race, heritage, and cultural affiliation.

To ensure adopted adults are treated equally under the law, SB 381 authorizes the disclosure of an original birth certificate to an adopted person or a descendant of an adopted person, specifically 18 years and older.

This Bill also establishes a process to request an original birth certificate from the county or state registrar and requires the state registrar to create a non-binding contract preference form for—to birth parents.

This Bill also removes the ability to request an amended birth certificate that omits the city and county of birth or color and race of the parents. With me I have Wendy Turk with the California Alliance for Adoptee Rights and Susan Lexander, an adoptee, a birth mother, a licensed therapist, and the Executive Director of an adoption nonprofit.

Thank you for joining us, ladies. You'll have a combination of five minutes. It's up to you how you want to distribute that time.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair Menjivar, Vice Chair Valladares, and Members of the Committee. I'm Wendy Turk for the California Alliance for Adoptee Rights, sponsor of the Bill. I just found out seven years ago that I was adopted. It was devastating to learn that at age 56 I wasn't allowed to access my own identity.

I am bound for life by decisions made for me and about me. When I was born, my rights were stripped from me and even as an adult aren't part of the equation. Adoptees are simply asking for their own birth record, a vital record issued for all live births that everyone but adoptees has access to.

It is a human right, a matter of dignity, to have access to one's original birth certificate or OBC. There are also negative consequences from not having access, including physical and mental health implications. Adoptees may also face increased health costs to treat diseases which could have been prevented with knowledge of their family history.

Lacking access, I turned to DNA testing. Learning my true identity might literally have saved my life. I learned of a pattern of family cancers, had genetic testing, learned I had dangerous mutations, and underwent potentially life saving surgeries. Not everyone can learn their true identity through DNA testing, nor should they have to.

We deserve the piece of paper that shows not only our birth parents' names, but the name we were given at birth. What could belong to us more uniquely than our own name? We have been removed from our communities and from our truth and it's time to right this historical wrong. Birth mothers support access and corroborate.

They were never promised confidentiality from their own child, nor did they want it. Historically, relinquishment documents have never promised confidentiality, nor could they. Birth parents can't know when they relinquish if their child will be adopted and thus, they can't rely that their child's OBC will be sealed.

Sealing only takes place at adoption because the intent is to participate protect adoptees and adoptive families, not to protect birth parents. Even at adoption, there is no guarantee. An adoptive parent can request that there be no amended birth certificate and courts retain discretion to grant access.

Courts have found under these circumstances that there is no guarantee of and not even a reasonable expectation of anonymity. It is significant that current law does not prevent adoptees from learning their birth parents identity or from contacting them.

The only change our Bill will enable is access to our OVCs and that access will provide identity in a far more private way. With DNA testing, distant relatives end up in a whisper campaign trying to figure out who relinquished a child.

By contrast, providing access to an OBC will give knowledge to exactly one person, the adoptee, making the search more private for everyone. Sixteen states now allow unrestricted access. Hundreds of thousands of OBCs have been released over several decades with no negative consequences.

It's time for California, a champion of equal rights, to join the national trend toward truth and fairness. Please right the historical wrong and vote yes on SB 381. Thank you.

Thank you, Senators. My name is Susan—Susan Dushage Alexander, she/her. I'm a proud Mexican American woman, a transracial adoptee, a licensed marriage and family therapist, and a birth mother who relinquished my first child in 2001. I serve BIPOC adopted youth and their families as the Executive Director of PACT and Adoption Alliance.

I'm a Co-Founder of Reproductive Justice and Adoption and former Board President of Empower Alliance, a California nonprofit exclusively serving birth mothers. Today, I testify from the heart, as a birth mother and as a professional who has served hundreds of birth parents and adoptees for over 20 years. California birth parents do not need protection from our children.

Our children deserve the same access to their birth certificates as non-adopted people. The vast majority of birth parents I serve truly want what is best for our children and do not want confidentiality from them.

For the small percentage of birth parents who say because of societal stigma, trauma, and guilt that they prefer confidentiality, I say that good parenting means putting our children's needs above our own. Adoption is supposed to be a child-centered social welfare practice.

If the intention is to protect vulnerable people, that is the adoptee who did not get to consent to the decision made to relinquish that was made about them.

As a birth mother who, for 10 years, kept my child a secret from extended family because I was shamed by some of them and as a trauma responsive psychotherapist, I deeply understand and appreciate concerns about the mental health of birth parents who may have wanted privacy due to traumatic circumstances surrounding their pregnancy.

Having provided services to hundreds of birth mothers pre and post placement, I have seen time and again that women who said they wanted privacy at the start of placement do change their minds. And while it may be difficult to adjust, there is a strong community of California birth mothers.

Some are here today to—ready to offer our support, our loving peer support to them. Sealed birth certificates are based on lies that our lives and our children's lives would be better if we pretended that we did not carry and birth our children and that our familiar connection—familial connections—are worthless and meaningless.

California birth parents say stop treating our children as second class citizens. Stop infantilizing them. Start protecting. Thank you.

Thank you. Now is the time for anybody who'd like to come up and show their me too support for this Bill. Name, organization, and position.

Good afternoon. Jessica Cabrera from Sun Valley, in strong support of your Bill. Thank you.

Donna Owen. I'm a birth mother and I have testified 45 years ago in this Capitol that I was in favor of a similar bill, and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Elizabeth Watson Simmons. I grew up in an adopted family and stood behind Donna all those years ago when she testified here. We both...

Thank you.

We both continue to support Bill 381.

Thank you.

I am Laurie Schultz. I am an adoptee. I am a Co-Founder of California Alliance for Adoptee Rights, and I support this Bill. I ask for a yes vote.

Hi, my name is Jeff Turk. My wife, Wendy Turk, just gave testimony. She's an adoptee and I support this Bill.

I'm Monica Hall. I'm an adoptee and in 1972, I was raped. I became pregnant and relinquished my daughter for adoption in 1973, and I wholeheartedly support this Bill. Thank you.

I was born Baby Girl Gates. My current name is Megan Leeny. I'm from San Jose, California. I'm an adoptee and I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Jacob Choper. My mother is an adoptee and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Katie Winan, adult transracial Aaoptee, Oakland, CA. I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Alice Taylor Morgan, same race, black adoptee. I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Emily Bernhardt Troper. I'm a 55-year-old adult adoptee in California and please give me my birth certificate. I support this Bill.

Jenny Barnes from Discovery Bay, California. I am on the board of Empower Alliance and I'm a birth mom and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Carla, I'm from Rivet City. I am an adopted person, a transracial adoptee and a birth mother and please support this Bill. Thank you.

Hello. My first original name was Frank Novak and then I was in foster care and adopted and became Paul Kimple. I support this Bill.

Thank you.

My name is Jillian Medina. My mother Susan just testified. I'm an adoptee. Please support this Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Lisa Price, I'm an adoptee and please support this Bill.

My name is Janet Oklahouse. I was born into foster care and adopted. It took me 40 years to find my birth mother and even longer to discover that my birth father was of Mexican descent and that I was able to share in Hispanic culture. Please don't do that to another adoptee and make them wait that long.

Please support the Bill.

Hi, I was Audrey that became Tina. I'm a California born adoptee, interracially from—adopted interracially from foster care. Please support this Bill.

Hello, my name is Jennifer Wallig. Please pass this Bill for equal rights for adult adoptees. Thank you.

My name is Brooke Bergman. 14 years ago, I was a minor when I conceived birth and placed a child for adoption. They were all traumatic events. Adoption was a form of protection against a perpetrator, and I desperately want this to be law by my child's 18th birthday.

Thank you.

Baxter Culver, resident of Sacramento county. I'm an 85 year old adoptee in favor of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathleen Molly McLeod. I'm a foster adoptive, transracial adoptive parent. I wasn't given the choice to keep the original birth certificate. I would have. They're closed and this is not good for the adoptees. They shouldn't be second class citizens. Nobody's original birth certificate should be voided, and that's what it says on one of my sons.

No identity is voided.

Thank you. I don't believe there's any formal opposition on this Bill. Anyone would like to record a me too in opposition of this Bill? We're going to bring it back to the dais. I'm going to kick this off. Colleagues, I provided a non reco on this Bill, had conversations with the author.

In fact, I had several conversations this past weekend with LMFTs, LCSWs on this Bill because I was struggling with this Bill. There was some bias that came in as one day, you know, to be a parent and potentially adopt as a same sex couple. Those biases were coming in, and I couldn't get out of them.

So, I couldn't provide a recommendation that I felt was going to be a professional or just a policy driven recommendation on this Bill. The amendments that we provided to the author were not accepted. I felt we were trying to balance it where—so, the amendment she said she's taking are from Judicial only, there are no amendments from this Committee—that was trying to balance every valid story of everybody that came here, that can never be taken away.

I am not an adoptee. I've never been in your situation. I'm never going to undervalue what you felt and what you continue to feel to the. I don't know that feeling.

I only know what I've heard so far. That's a difficult feeling to be in where you don't know your background. I wholeheartedly agree that you should know your race. And that wasn't the part of disconnect with the author. That wasn't the part.

The part that we—that I—had trouble with is that 18 years old go and find your birth parent and that 18 year old at 18, perhaps being rejected from that individual and the trauma that comes out of that. Those are the conversations I had with therapists who do therapy with individuals that have experienced that.

While I recognize that people came here as birth moms, it's very hard to come here and say that you were a birth mom that gave up someone for adoption. Not a lot of people have that kind of bravery and share.

It would be very difficult to come here and say, I'm against this Bill because I gave up someone at adoption. We're not going to hear that side of the story for this Bill. So, I was trying to bring in those stories into my consideration of this Bill.

There are people who, when they give someone up, the hardest decision I can imagine they've ever made, may be in a situation where that's where the relationship ends with that individual. And we have to accept that there are people that feel that way.

And I was trying to protect that as well but also protect your right to know about your history. So, my, the amendment that we proposed is that you would get the birth certificate only if the birth parent had passed away already.

Trying to find a balance, just a balance, but that was rejected, which is why I propose a non reco. I personally cannot support this Bill because of that, but my colleagues will be voting their conscience on how to support this Bill. Senator Rubio.

Thank you, Chair, and, you know, there's a lot of things we do here based on policy, but then there's some personal experiences or just things that we have to grapple with.

And, you know, oddly enough, I think I'm really in line with the term this one for various reasons, that there's no way I would say I disagree with the Bill and that you shouldn't have the right to know everything that you need to know and that it has, you know, benefits to understanding your health history.

All of it is valid. But I do agree with that portion.

The piece of, you know, how many mothers we do have that would be mortified, you know, that they've moved on, got married, have children, and then perhaps would be waiting for someone to come and find them and they would have to grapple with, you know, their children, their future circumstance.

All that is valid, but that's not the biggest portion for me. But I will start with saying that of course you're all right, all of you. Again, I don't have the experience. I'm not adopted, I don't have a child.

But it brings to mind just, you know, I come from, you know, such a low income community, a lot of pressure from parents in our Latino communities. There is a time, I think prior to the 70s or 80s, where, you know, children would get pregnant.

There were young girls that would get pregnant and they would be mortified—what if my mom finds out or whatever, family, friends—and instead of giving their children up for adoption or anything else, you know, they would dump their babies in the trash cans and things like that.

Somehow after that, I think a bill surfaced that would make it—I think it was called the Safe Haven Law, that instead of throwing your baby in the trash can and killing your baby, you could go turn it in safely to the Fire Department, and that's how so many babies were saved.

So, the reason I'm trying to just give this context is that I wonder if giving a child up for adoption is a safe way for someone to give up a child without harming a child versus, you know, if they know that family members may know or they may be exposed with that potentially scare mothers from giving up their children for adoption.

And that's the other side. Can they harm the child? And I know that that was happening at record numbers before the Safe Haven Law said turn your baby in. No consequences, no jail time. So, it's one of those that it's not that it's right or wrong.

But there is this other piece of me that worries about that unsafe circumstance for a young person that may be wanting me to give up a child but then hesitate because of that exposure. So, it's not an answer or it's just this personal thing that I'm grappling with.

I also feel that there might be a middle ground where, you know, the Chair said something about passing away, the parent passing away. But I mean, is there a potential—I don't have the answer to give all the information from the health and where they come from, nationality, everything else, without necessarily revealing the name of the person.

But maybe as the adoption happens, requiring all that information up front, everything from, you know, health history and have it on record, so,, if someone needs that information, it would be handed to them again without revealing the name per se, so that continues to be private.

I don't have the answer, but I can ask if anybody can speak to that.

What was the question more specifically?

Is there a way to maybe reveal the—give the birth certificate with all the information that's useful that all of you have expressed, knowing if there's a history of cancer and any ailment that can help you in the future, meaning a requirement that when you give a child up for adoption, there's 10 boxes you have to fill out from cancer history, from, you know, who you are, nationality, everything that we're asking right now without having to give the name of the person, but you would get the benefit of all the information you're seeking?

Again, I don't know the answer, but is there a potential?

Well, first and foremost, I want to thank the Chair because we did have conversations about this. And, you know, we're at a crossroads of, you know, feelings about this. I have my own personal feelings; she has her personal feelings. Here's the reality.

Some of the commentary that was made was very clear that we want to know who the parents are, period. Right? And so, one aspect is, yes, of course, race, gender, identity, things like that.

The other, which is one of the biggest part, is potentially a reconnection, not only from people who have dealt with severe trauma, who gave up their kid. And we've talked about this in last night's Committee as well.

And I'm talking about rape and sexual abuse and incest and you name it, 18 plus years later, when that kid potentially is an adult and the parent who gave them up still wants to know, is that kid okay? Did I make the right decision? Did they come out of it well?

To your point, also, when we are talking about safe havens, we have a significant amount of laws around that space already. Giving up the child at a hospital, giving it up in public safety types of buildings, whether it's fire and so forth. We have been adopting and adapting to some of the stories that we are hearing.

You heard a person who said over 40 years ago, they came here, We, as adopted kids, still don't have rights. This is a very narrowly tailored bill that specifically says that when a person is 18, they can actually seek their information.

I will also highlight that the majority of individuals that seek their information are actually, depending on female or male—the adoptee, if they're in, they're a female, they tend to try to search in their mid to late 20s. Men later, 30s and 40s.

Besides race and gender and identities in those aspects, we also want to know who they are as a human being. And so, as much as we are trying to protect the parent that has given the child away, they get 18 years where they don't have to necessarily worry about this.

The way that searches happened, prior to 23andMe and, you know, all the DNA genetic testing out there is that they would hear something, from either a social worker, that they can still go out and look for their social work records because they have to go through a system someplace. They will hear—pull up court documents and do as much as they can to dig and dig and dig.

I've done it. And eventually, they hear stories of like, zero, I remember when your adoptive parents adopted you, this is what they told me. Aunts, cousins, elders, and you hear rumors your entire life.

And then, again, before the genetic testing, people would go and search classmates, schools, and be incredibly invasive and there'd be a guessing game of who is the parent, who gave up the child, who was pregnant in my high school.

And so, I want to highlight the fact that this is a very respectful measure to give people an identity after 18 years. And the no contact piece I fully respect and I understand. This is the part that we try to narrow as much as possible, and I want to be very clear.

There are laws already that if there is an unwanted engagement with another human being, they can have the help that they can. And we know, even in that space, and Senator, I know you know this well, there's a lot of room for improvement there as well.

What most of the testimony you heard, and I will say, just speaking as a person who has been in this space, we want answers that everyone already has. We have a history in this country, especially for people of color to be stripped of their identity, their culture, their religion, everything, even their name.

And it may not mean much to a lot of people, but the fact that we have people that are in their 80s with the question, who are my parents? It's a lifelong trauma. So, I will say, we have narrowed this Bill significantly, but any further we wouldn't have a Bill where we can give these people dignity.

Senator, I'd like to also add and clarify one of the amendments where we're trying to balance. There is a contact preference form.

And one of the amendments we suggested is when the individual goes to request the original birth certificate that it only be given if the preference contact form says the birth mom said I do want to be contacted and that was the way where we could try to balance that. So, that was the actual amendment we proposed.

So, the problem, and the problem—the reason why we push back on that, and mind you...

Sorry, I'm just to give it back to—Senator Rubio has the floor.

Well, I would—and I would probably add some kind of middle ground. Right? I choose not to be contacted but reach out to me in 10 years and I would—to update their ability to change their mind later on. Maybe their ability to change their mind would maybe alleviate some of that that concern.

There is that in the Bill. So, the Bill creates the form. The Bill has three options for this form, says: I would like to be contacted, I would like to be contacted by a third person, or I would not like to be contacted at this time. The birth certificate will still have the name of the person.

It's up to the adoptee if they're going to respect the perform—the contact form or not.

And lastly, to that, and like I said, when I hear—I respect you very much, Senator Wahab, and everyone that's here, but, you know, when I hear about, you know, stripping people of identity and all that, I mean, everything that you said, I'm 100% in agreement.

That's the, I guess the travesty here, that—it's not that I disagree with anything you said, but like, you know, I happen to come from communities—you know, clearly, I'm a Latina—where Latinos tend to feel very strongly, like, let's say, about abortion.

And I've had, you know, families, you know, in high school and stuff where, you know, girls wanted to have abortions but parents said no, like, you know, I'll take you, give the baby for adoption.

And so, when I think of these, you know, past history of families, I always think like, okay, so are we going to push the now young ladies to stay quiet and go get an abortion, rather give up the child because they fear? And like I said, we can all have ideas of how people would react.

But that's the thing, it's so personal to so many. And that is why I'm struggling because I have not been in that situation and I will not be in that situation. But I have to remember parents dragging their, their daughters to go give their child up for adoption because they did not want them to have an abortion.

And so, see, there's going to be some unintended consequences here where maybe, you know, we're not going to give that child or young lady a choice because it's either going to be an abortion or risk later on, you know, being exposed.

I, like I said, this is just something that it's not about agreeing with all of you because I absolutely, I do absolutely do agree, but I wanted to express some of the things that I'm grappling with, and I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you, Senator, give you some time to think. We have a couple more questions and comments. Senator Dr. Weber Pierson.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward, thank all of those who have come to voice your support for this Bill.

I did see this Bill yesterday, Judiciary, and you know, at that time, I did mention, I think, as our Chair mentioned, that, you know, you're not really going to see opposition to this because those who would oppose want to remain anonymous.

There are people out there who, for whatever reason, their own personal reason, they chose a closed or confidential adoption. And that was their expectation. And so, they're not going to come out and say, I oppose.

I don't want people to know this about me, because then that kind of puts a spotlight on them. You know, and I spoke a lot about the—that particular person who had done that, and their desire to potentially remain anonymous or for this information to remain confidential.

I ended up supporting the bill because I was hopeful that there was a workable path with the form. So, I was a little surprised to hear today that there were amendments suggested here in Health, that dealt with the form, that were declined, because yesterday, you know, we talked or I talked—came up, I don't remember who was with me—about, you know, medical issues.

If someone, you know, comes in later and wants to see their form but wants to know their medical history, that on the form, someone could say, do not contact me, but here are my medical—my family medical issues or my personal medical issues, so that you would have that kind of information.

But that individual—that, that, that parent—could still remain or keep their confidentiality, but you could get some of the information that, that you were looking for. And I thought yesterday we were moving in a direction where we could work on that form.

So, I'm—I was a little taken aback by the fact that there were amendments suggested that specifically dealt with the form that have been rejected, because I was not aware of that yesterday. So, now, I'm kind of wondering. Explain, explain this to me. Yeah, please.

Sorry, I'm gonna—you're directing?

Yes, I'm directing it to the author, and if she wants to.

Yes. So, first, I just want my witnesses to speak a little bit about some of the conversations we had because there were amendments discussed late last night as to what, what are we gonna end up doing. I want you to at least hear directly from them, and then also myself. So, if you don't mind.

Yes, thank you. So, I want to address Senator Weber. Thank you all, by the way. But I want to address your comments first, and then I will address Senator Rubio's comments. We are completely okay with what we discussed yesterday in terms of having extra space on the form to be able to fill in things like medical information.

You know, I don't want to be contacted, but I want you to know this medical information, or I do want to be contacted, but here's this information, and we can all talk about what else could be on the form. We have no problem with that.

What we do have a problem with, respectfully, is requiring that there must be a form attached and that it must say contact is okay. That was what we were saying we are not in agreement with. And that is because, well, first of all, I think it might be a logistical nightmare and expensive and impossible to contact every single birth parent in the state, who knows where they've ended up, to require that they attach the form.

They might not even answer their mail.

I think it might even be intrusive into their privacy if the letter arrives in the mail and now their whole family finds out about it. So, you know, we, and we don't feel that as adults that we need consent to be able to find out our true identity.

Adoptees are the ones that are given absolutely no rights whatsoever. It's all—we're protecting the birth parents, which I'm sensitive to and understand. But adoptees have no say over their identity.

And a lot of us that are here know who our birth parents are, but we just want that piece of paper that tells us what our name was, where our birth parents lived. Mine are not alive, but I want to drive by the apartment building where they lived. You know, it's just a matter of knowing our truth.

And as far as medical issues, the thing is that when a child is born, if you fill out the form, I mean, my birth mother was very young and healthy and had no idea what was going on.

And even I found out now, even though I only found out at age 56, I've heard through family, when I was 30 and pregnant, a lot of adoptive parents were given the names of the birth parent. My mother tracked down my birth parent and said, are there any medical issues we should know about? And she said, no.

Well, after that, she died of breast cancer. Her sister died of breast cancer. My birth father's mother died of ovarian cancer. And it turns out, I have the...gene mutation. Well, no one would have known that when they filled out the form.

But I can understand years later if they want to amend it and fill in information, we have no problem with that. And this is not about contact. It's about having that piece of paper. Anyone can contact anyone now through private eyes, DNA, all of that, and that's not what this is going to all of a sudden enable.

The only change will be that we get our birth certificate. And it's far less intrusive because it's not a whole family finding out. As far as any worry about increased abortion, there have been some.

I'm going to have you just respond to Senator Dr. Weber Pierson. She's the only one who asked her question, not Senator Rubio.

Yeah, I'm sorry. And so, now, I'm even more confused about this Bill. I thought—I was under the impression that this notification, this three question, currently three question form, would go out prior to birth certificates being released, at least to allow for notification of that particular individual.

But now, you're saying that that's not not the case, that

I mean maybe Senator Wahab can answer. I'm not sure there will be time. We're agreeing to increase not delayed implementation until I think July of 2028. And there would be time for advertising of this law and the ability to fill out the form. I don't know as far as notification to every birth parent.

And I'd like to clarify, there's two provisions to this Bill. Let's be very clear. Two provisions. The first provision is to no longer omit from the new birth certificate—no longer omit city, county, place of hospital, and race. That's—no one is talking about that provision.

So, to you saying we want to know the street, that's staying in the—I mean that's not the part that's being discussed. So, that part is still going to be now, if this Bill passes, going to be added to the new birth certificate.

The second provision of this Bill is to have the name of the birth parents to be able to contact. So, you will have the ability to have the city county from this first provision of this Bill. So, that's, that's not being, that's not the topic of conversation here. Redirect us to what actually.

So, right. Okay. So, now, what we're saying is that there is no guarantee of a form that I will see to give my preference in advance.

And if I am an individual that gave my child up for adoption, then I could theoretically just like be at my house and they knock on my door, and I have no idea that this information has been released?

May I respond to that, Senator Weber Pierson? So, I supervise an adoption agency. PACT is a licensed adoption agency, licensed by the California Department of Social Services.

First of all, there is already a form, the 8067, which is filled out by every relinquishing parent that provides all of the non-identifying information that goes with—to the adoptive parents when they adopt. What this Bill says is that adopted people are saying nothing about us, without us.

They want their original birth certificate the same as every non-adopted person.

And the way to—so, the question that you're specifically asking, a form that would go along with every relinquishment document, if that person is signing it today in 2026, that they do or do not want to be contacted, 18 years from now, their minds could change and so, if you're proposing that a second form has to be sent out when the adopted person requests their birth certificate, that seems exceptionally difficult to implement.

Explain to me, Senator Wahab, because this is very confusing.

Yeah, we're getting all confused at this point.

Yeah, I'm completely confused at this point. So, this form with this, with these three questions that we were talking about yesterday, I was under the impression that it's a new form because we have a—or we are proposing a new law.

Yes.

Now, I'm hearing that this is—is it a new form because we're preparing, we're proposing a new law?

Yes. So, I think that what is happening here is that the state registrar will make available, in 2028, a form, a contact preference form, specifically with these particular questions that we've all discussed, right, and it will include the following sections. Right?

So, there is a contact form that will be created. Now, this contact form, how will I get it as an individual who potentially gave my child up for adoption 20 years ago and did a confidential adoption and is under the impression that my name will never be out there. So, how will that form get to me?

That's our concern. Right? So, if you would like to.

Yeah, but that's in your Bill now. That's in the Bill now.

Well, how would it get to me?

So, it's in one of the amendments coming out of that Committee.

We added, "Notwithstanding any other law, the state registrar shall announce and publicize the availability of the contact preference form, utilizing a means of communication appropriate to inform the public effectively."

Okay. So, the—so, it'll just be announced somewhere. The form, even though you have my name, not like the, but, you know, the Department, whatever.

State registrar.

The state register. The state register isn't going to specifically mail something to me to say, hey, there's a change in the law. You may not have.

We don't know, actually. It could be possibility. It just says shall, announce, publicize. It's however they want to do it. It's no specifics.

So, CDPH is fine with this particular piece. It will be announced, and it will have some of these pieces. Our concern is the significant cost and a poison pill to drive up the cost where this Bill dies. I'm just going to be very frank about that. Right?

And at the same time, we've also heard many of the people that even if they gave up their child at that moment in time, that they believe it was the right decision for them, right, which we wholeheartedly understand the circumstance, 15 years later, 30 years later, 40 years later.

But that's the whole point of this form, right? Like, I've changed my mind, please contact me now.

So, we are fine with that piece. It's the information, and there's a specific part that I think that the sponsors and I kind of, like, looked at. And again, we just received some of this back-and-forth last night. So, it's removing the ability to omit information or amend—we've talked about that, but I don't know if.

I know you wanted to say something, just for this one piece. Do you want to comment?

No, I mean, I thought that the way it was written was that you could not request an original birth certificate. Until now we're saying July 2028. But they would announce the availability of the contact preference form in advance of that. I thought originally it was written as July 2027. I don't have it in front of me.

So that there would be a lot of effort. It could be in the media, it could be on their websites, it could be. I don't know how these things get done, but publicity so that birth mothers could be on notice of it and then they would have to, you know, request it online or whatever.

So the form would be available definitely in advance of when we would be allowed to request our original birth certificate. So there would be time for birth mothers to express their opinions. That was the goal, as I understood it. Is that correct?

Okay, and then what? Well, okay, so back to what we were discussing yesterday. There is still room open for conversations, negotiations about what is on that form to make it as clear as possible of what, you know, I don't. She. Whoever may not want, but to provide, you know, the information that they may need.

Okay, so I don't want to be clear because I think we had a lot of back and forth and it was not clear what's being asked versus what is the amendment. We are fine with the forum.

We are deeply concerned specifically that this makes it more difficult that obviously the poison pill part of some of the concerns we have. And I think that we would like to continue the work on this as we move forward. We've talked to CDPH on. On this particular pie.

We do think that we've even pushed back this effort so people will wait more years for this. We want to give the birth mothers an opportunity to also be able to say, like I'm in search as well and really just help both sides, but specifically the adoptees that have, you know, feel like they've been lost and forgotten.

Senator, what's the poison pill you keep referring to or poison pill you keep referring to? The significant amount of cost. What part?

What I'm getting losses to what part? So what is the part that you are interested in that you feel. Let's restate that because I think that's.

Where start and I can read it to the Committee. What was sent on Monday, not last night. What was sent on Monday to the author.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, the state register shall, if a contact preference form is attached to an original birth certificate and the form indicates that a birth parent is willing to be contacted, then provide to the adopted person who is 18 years of age or older, who was born in the state, the birth certificate.

So that would essentially allow for someone who, let's say I said 30 years ago, no, and now I've changed my mind.

Absolutely. Because that's still in part in the bill. There's a period where people are going to fill out this form and that because this wouldn't go into effect for a year or so. So now you would only get the birth certificate if there is a contact.

If I said no, because I still want to remain my confidentiality for whatever. Reason, no birth certificate is going to be. Well, no birth certificate with the name.

With no original birth certificate would be given. Yeah, but they would still get the information. Yes. They would still get City, county, hospital and race. Yes.

So they won't be able to obtain.

Yes.

Okay.

Those are the amendments that were given on Monday. I'm going to go now to. Are you done, Senator? Are you done? Are you done, Senator? Okay. The Vice Chair.

There's been a, a lot of, of back and forth in depth conversation here. Here. Give me a second and I'll address you. Even though I'm not the chair, I'll make sure that my question is for you. So I heard this in Judiciary yesterday. There were some great conversations about the bill.

The purpose I asked to be a co author. And that is an important amendment on the bill today. I'm going to be added as a co author. I actually spoke to somebody a few hours ago who is very close to me who is ecstatic about the opportunity to see their real birth certificate.

They have a copy of their amended birth certificate. They met their father for the first time last year. Their father didn't know that they existed. The father knows who the mother is.

And this person would love a copy of their birth certificate, but has no intention of reaching out to the mother because they don't think that they want that. And so there are adoptees who want to respect the will of their biological and birth parents. They just want their own information that I believe is their right to have.

This is the Health Committee, though, and we're here to analyze the health implications on this data being given to adoptees and to individuals. And I think of my own mother who I knew and raised me and was a wonderful mother who was very young when she had me.

She was, I think she was 25 and she had four kids. I had 36 in my first. So great mom. She died of pancreatic cancer when she was 62. Years old.

There's no way that she could have known that she was going to die at 62 had she given me up for adoption because she died of pancreatic cancer. And I was able to talk to my doctor about my health history and my mom's health history. I was eligible for genetic testing and I am fine.

That, I think is is the key priority of this Committee to analyze and assess whether or not this positively impacts the health of Californians and specifically those who are adopted.

And I think that is a major important aspect of what this bill will be doing and that every person deserves to understand their genetic history because it impacts their lifelong health. And I'm looking at it through that lens right now. I do want to also address that. I think that the amendments are fair.

The health form is fair. We can all understand and appreciate that when there are also with our own bills, when there are dollars attached to is likely to get killed in appropriations if it costs you much. I also think that this doesn't necessarily have to be the end of the work on this issue. Yes.

And so I want to see this bill move forward. I think it's important for the health and well being of adoptees to know this information and I will move the bill when appropriate. I also want to make sure that I'm asking for some clarification from our sponsors on some of the questions that were brought up.

Thank you.

We appreciate that and thank you for your comments.

Yes, so what I think Senator Wahab, if I can interpret was talking about the poison pill aspect, is in terms of the cost, if everyone were required to receive the form and fill it out and attach it before we could receive our birth certificate, to have to try to track down people from 10, you know, eight decades ago and find them and see if they're even alive is what could cause a lot of expense.

But also, we should not have to have consent to be able to just get our birth certificate. We want to give plenty of time for the public to hear about this and to fill out the form and then, you know, it gives people contact. We're not looking out there to contact people and harass people.

I know people that found their birth parents and the birth parents said, I don't want any contact. And they said, okay. I mean, that happened in my own family with some relatives. I don't want any trouble. And there is protection in the law.

But anyway, so we want to give everyone the opportunity to fill out the information and whatever is on that form, we're happy to add in. But not to have to require. What if they find someone where they live and they send it out and the person just doesn't return it for whatever reason?

Then we can't get our birth certificate because they didn't. The mail didn't come. I mean my mail doesn't come half the time or they just didn't fill it out or didn't return it and that penalizes us from. From getting our piece of paper. So we want to make the form available.

We are happy to add all kinds of things to the form but it can't be that it has to be returned and there has to be.

I have just a follow up question I'll insert here too because to address to the author the amendments that were offered in the health Committee and not taken for my and maybe both through the author and the chair I can get an answer on this.

The amendments that were offered by health would have essentially said that if you as a birth parent opt out of being contacted then the birth certificate would not be released to someone seeking.

Was an opt in. It was an opt in approach and it's not requiring mandate to reach out to every single birth parent for this.

It still kept the approach that the author has in the bill of the public awareness and it was up through that public awareness if someone wanted to submit the form to say they want to be contacted. So we're not. It's not an additional cost whatsoever. It's the same exact process that is in the bill.

So but it's not an opt out. It would be an opt in. You would submit the form if you want to be contacted and if that form is submitted the original birth certificate is given.

So then if you don't opt in on it's still accomplishing the same thing. If you don't opt in then you can as the adoptee can still not. Access the first certificate. That is correct. And that that's.

There's no back and forth unless you get asked the question.

Yes.

So Vice Chair. It's the Vice Chairs. I mean happy to give my. Well I did ask of the author if she wanted to weigh in on this on this specific. Otherwise give my time back to J. Chair.

Okay. All right. I would like to actually respond. So again we were told about amendments but the amendments that were presented were yesterday and I want to be clear about that. I will also say that absolutely it will cost money, a significant amount of money. We have been in conversation with CDPH.

We want to make sure that this is a seamless and easier effort. We are Talking about literally decades of people moving, of people having different names, different last names, old addresses being on file, people, you know, doing whatever they can in different states and much more. So I will say this.

I think that just for clarity and stuff like that, we are fine with a consent form. We have said that many, many times. And what has been relayed here today was that if the parents are deceased, then the form is released. We have to track down if this person potentially is deceased and connect it.

I want to clarify. I clarified my amendment. That was incorrect. Amendment, that's not the amendment.

Thank you. And then at the same time, again, so even sidelining the deceased part is the fact that if somebody gave a child up and that child turns 18, so already almost 20 years in, and they seek out their parent, the form with going backwards leaves a lot of people out. Right.

And so I do want to allow my witness to actually respond because again, this is a very sensitive topic. We have lived experience with this. We want answers. We're not asking for a lot of. And there are so many other laws to protect so many different situations and circumstances.

So if they would like to respond, because I know that they've have some comments as well through the chair.

Okay. So for me. Okay, thank you. So I just wanted to clarify. Yeah.

Actually, yes. I'm getting requests from my colleagues. They have a lot of questions. So we're going to go down the list. Senator Richardson, thank you. Thank you.

Just a couple things. One from people that I've interacted with, I think we can all learn from language. I would just ask people maybe to consider not saying a mother gives their child up. I don't know that mothers really give their children up.

Maybe they are single, seeking additional assistance in helping to raise their child because they're not in a position to do so or maybe whatever situations happen.

But I just, I have heard from birth mothers that that reference of giving them up, like you just gave them up and you don't care, is really not a fair, accurate reflection maybe of how they might feel. So just consideration amongst Members, maybe to think of a different way of saying that.

Number two, I kind of think 18 is a little young. I kind of more prefer 21 in the sense that, you know, you're not just out of high school and, you know, so much is happening. I just think that's a lot. But I support the bill regardless of the age. But I'm just sharing with you my feedback.

And then finally, my thought is communication via a website. If a mother knew that when my child is 18 years old that they potentially will have the ability to get this information. Then the mother knows, okay, I had this child on such and such a date, they may get this information.

They can check a website, they can see an update. I think we have to be really careful and not just leave it up to someone of how people are communicated. People move, family Members don't know. I mean there's so much.

So I think a more proactive, if there's a website where, you know, mothers, parents, whoever can check and see the status of what's going on, I just think could help alleviate some of the challenges maybe that a birth mother that those who've experienced, I think all of us, we have concerns for the birth mother would at least be able to be proactive in knowing if a request has been submitted and that it is potential that a request someone, their child may have this information.

So. And then finally, I just want to say I share everyone's position of concerns of a birth mother's rights, but I think we also have a responsibility that the children have rights, that it was due to no fault of their own, you know, that they were adopted and that they have equal rights as well.

And with that I stand to support the bill. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Padilla, thank you very much, Madam. Chair, and for your input. I share many of your concerns and I appreciate the debate here. And I think what. And I totally respect and appreciate where the author and the proponents and many of those with this lived experience are trying to go.

And I certainly understand that from a health and well being and welfare perspective. I think what I'm struggling with is we've created this new statutory sort of construct and I know that it was referenced in the Judiciary Committee's analysis that with respect to the contact preference form, it's really not binding from a legal standpoint.

It's not our purview here, but I think it's relevant to the conversation. But because it is not binding.

And I think that what I'm struggling with is that yes, there is obviously numerous health and well being and developmental and healing benefits to adoptees who would be here, petitioners in seeking this information about where they came from and the whys. I'm sure there's so many whys and so many unique experiences. I respect and understand that.

What I'm struggling with is, is that I think we can't forget that there may well be also health and well being dimensions with respect to the birth parents. Okay. And with respect to protecting any desire there to not be contacted for their own health and well being, psychological and otherwise.

And what I'm not hearing in the debate and as we sort of parse out the construct here, that there's a complete protection of that, that it's entirely what I'm hearing reading between the lines and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, if there is a petition with the right standing and the original birth certificate is released and there's no redaction provision that I see in here, so that means that's the name of the parents, the location, the basic, as we say, horsepower of the parents, you know, the information.

There's nothing preventing a petitioner adoptee whether or not there's a preference of the birth parent to go and contact them. And my concern is that that is not baked yet. And I don't believe that these provisions are necessarily mutually exclusive, but they're both equally valuable when we look at this from a health and well being perspective.

And so I have concerns here that this isn't quite where it needs to be in, in that regard, particularly since, you know, functionally the contact preference form, which I think is appropriate, is sort of a guideline and not something that's fully protective. And that's what I'm concerned about. Thank you, Madam Chair.

He didn't ask a question. I apologize, ma'. Am. I'm so sorry. I can't, I can't. That's the rules of the Committee.

Senator Wiener, thank you. I have a few questions. Could you respond to Senator Padilla, please?

There has been research done and there was a letter submitted by the National Center on Adoption Permanency that the number one factor for birth mother mental health well being is knowing that their children are okay. Which is why they support access, because they want their children to be able to find them and to know that they're okay.

One of the women that spoke and said she testified here 45 years ago is a birth mother. Birth mothers are dying. They want to know what happened to their children and that their children are okay. Adoptees are also dying.

And so it is a matter of birth mother well being and birth mothers can be found now with DNA testing. This is not about contact. This will make it less intrusive. Other people won't find out. With DNA testing. Testing. It's one person finding out their identity. My birth mother's not alive. I just want that piece of paper.

It's not about contact.

I'm going to go back to Senator Perdilla because you opened that up. He has the opportunity.

That was A respond to my question. I'll reclaim my time and thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I think it's.

I hear that, but there is a distinction, isn't there, between having a bill that creates a new construct and an absolute right to obtain your original birth certificate when you, you have standing, which opens this up to everyone in this scenario, Everyone without exception. When there is a document to indicate preference for contact, that is not binding.

Right. And there's a distinction when we look at policy that affects societal health and well being that is both cumulative and individual.

There's a distinction between having a study or a poll or an analysis done that looks at a data set and says there's a legitimate indicator here from the data set that there's a benefit to birth parents to knowing the disposition of their children. Of course there is, but that is not just the only consideration for this Committee.

This Committee has to look at the cumulative societal benefit of health and welfare, but we also have to look at the individual benefit. And within the data set that you cite, there are probably individuals who would say, actually, maybe I'm in a minority in this data set, but that circumstance would actually be detrimental to me.

It actually would be harmful to me. So again, I don't take issue with the direction that the intent of the bill seeks to go and the opportunities that it opens. What I'm concerned about is the way we have fashioned it, at least at this point.

I don't believe we've completely addressed the, those other protections around cumulative and individual health and well being to include the birth parents, because that is our purview. And these things are bilateral. These things don't exist in a vacuum. And so I just want to make sure that there's a level of completeness here. Right.

That the scope of this is important. And that's where I understand some of the concerns.

Senator Wiener, I'm going to ask that you just stick to the questions that you have so we don't go back and forth with other Members.

Okay, that was a question because I was curious how they responded. But I do have my own question, separate from Senator Padilla. What percentage of adoptions today are open? In other words, the people they know who their parents are. There is that relationship.

Currently, the research shows that 90 to 95% of birth mothers want contact with their children. The vast majority of adoptions today are open. All of the research says that open adoption is what is best for the adopted person, for the birth parents and for the adoptive parents.

And so, but okay, so that, so in terms of birth parents who do not have contact with their kid, the percentage that are open to having contact. With their kid is in the 90s, 90 to 95%. Yeah. So I want to. I strongly support this bill I supported in Judiciary yesterday. I support it today.

I am concerned that some of the ideas that are being discussed are going to overly complicate this and make it very, very hard to administer and for anyone to actually use it, in addition to creating all the costs which put the bill in jeopardy in terms of the appropriations process.

And I think fundamentally, we know that a very, very large majority of birth parents are not opposed to that contact. So they're not going to be horrified if someone reaches out to them or finds them.

And we also know that for the adopted kids who are now maybe adults, that they, some will want it to have contact and some won't.

And so for that subset, whatever percentage it is that want to have contact that is meaningful and important to them, we know that 100% of them want it, and we know that the large majority of birth parents are okay with it.

So given that understanding, and I know there are complexities here, and I totally respect that, and in any given structure that we create, including the current one, there will be some people who will not be happy about the result. And that is true of current law.

It is true of any law, any regime that we create around this issue. There are going to be some people who are going to end up not being pleased with the result.

But here we have an opportunity to do something that will make happy 100% of the people, of the adoptees who are interested in doing this, and that for the vast majority of birth parents, they will be fine with it. And so to me, this bill is way overdue.

And I think we should pass it out of Committee today.

I just need to clarify, there's no additional cost to the amendments that were proposed. The amendments are in front of the Committee Members. There's no new system that is being proposed. The system is adhering to what the author has in the bill right now. It is not a mandate. It is not looking to fine people.

So there is no additional cost. There is no poison pill to get this stuck in a purpose. Senator Rubio, you had other questions, comments?

Yeah, and. Okay. It's really hard not to. Like I said, you bring your personal experience, and I try really hard not to do that. You know, we have to separate, you know, the policy to what's good and what's bad.

And, you know, you know, I really, really respect Senator Gualhaub and we often talk about some of our personal lives and what happens in our world, you know, and you just say it right now, you know, this is very personal to you, and I have to share a little more.

You know, I try not to bring my personal experience, but I have to understand how I feel. We may cause harm to lives. Not just everyone's going to be unhappy. It's not about being happy or unhappy, but, you know, we may cause harm to physically harm individuals, you know, so I'm just going to share.

I am an advocate, domestic violence victims advocate. I've been fighting for victims a long, long time. So there's two issues that I want to share. Number one, I mean, I cannot imagine somehow someone being married to someone that may be abusive.

And this person left out the information that I got pregnant, I had a child, I gave it up for adoption.

And then lo and behold, because we make it public now, this abusive husband or partner, whoever may be, finds out because I've been in a situation that's been very harmful, and it wasn't because I had a child and gave it up for adoption. It was for much less.

I cannot imagine the reaction of an abusive man or woman, because we know what happens to both.

That response of finding out that you, after 15 years, 20 years, 30 years, whatever, you left out the fact that you had a child with another man, had a baby, and you failed to disclose it, I can tell you it's not about being happy or sad. I don't think that person would survive.

Number two, when we do bills here, typically, you know, there's reasons sometimes we say retract versus not retroactive, because, you know, when things. People do things, they do it with full understanding. You know, I'm going to do this knowing that someday my name is going to be released.

But you do it fully understanding the consequence of that action. If 18 years ago, 20 years ago, we tell someone, don't you worry, this is private, your information is going to be protected. And you do something in that moment, understanding that that was the law and that's what they understood.

And then later on, it kind of changes on them. You know, we're asking them to now understand that we're changing the rules sort of midway. Again, that's my personal belief. But the third piece, which is really, really critical to me, and again, I have to bring my personal experience.

Most people here know that every day I think I'm going to be murdered. Every day I come to work, I go home, and I think I'm going To wake up dead.

You know, I have restraining orders and the anxiety of something that may or may not happen, walking around just with that anxiety of not knowing this is something that I sort of equate in some way. And please don't feel disrespected that I'm equating two things that are totally different.

But I'm talking about all of a sudden we advertise it, right? Just so you know, if you gave a child up for adoption, now you may. Someone may come and find you. It's the unknown that may cause these mental health issues. And I live it every day. So walking around thinking something may happen, may not happen.

It's just not healthy. So I do think there is an impact on the other side. An abusive husband or boyfriend finds out that this happened, that person may end up dead because that significant other didn't disclose.

And then walking around with the other side of your mental health being disturbed because you think my God, people are going to find out. I never said anything. It's that unknown.

Which again, I live every day walking around thinking that someone's going to kill me and that I'm not going to make it the next day is an anxiety that is really difficult to manage. And so I needed to say that because I don't want anyone walking out here saying that it has to do with adoption.

I don't want anyone to have the rights or I'm not trying to give people their right. It is the other side that I work worry. We just don't know what the impacts are that are really now giving me that anxiety that I wish I didn't have, but I do.

So I wanted all of you to know that you have the right. I understand that. But there's the other side. We just don't know. I feel it's a black box right now, and I worry that we may end up harming other people inadvertently. So that is why I needed to share that. Thank you.

Can you respond to that.

Senator Ruby? Would you like a response to that? No, I just wanted you to know why this feels very strongly to me. Going Back to Senator Dr. Weber Pearson.

Thank you, Chair. So, you know, I told you or I mentioned yesterday that I, you know, I would support it with continued work, but that didn't necessarily mean that I was going to support it on the floor. Disappointed to hear that there were amendments that were not taken or at least, you know, more conversation and negotiations.

I understand the concerns that I've heard. I. And again, also, I'm thinking about the Silent opposition. Dismiss. I agree with Senator Rubio. It was kind of like a contract that has been made that we are now reversing and the health, mental, psychological impacts that it may have on the birth mother.

I, you know, I'm inclined to allow you to continue to work, but there are some significant issues with this bill as is. And like I've said, just because there's not opposition here does not mean that there are not people who would be concerned about this information being released.

And I think that we must take them as a legislative body that is our responsibility to look out for all Californians. We must take their potential concerns, their well being into account as well. We must do that.

I am all for knowing your race, your address, your birthplace, all of that information and your birth parent if that's what they want. If they change their mind and now they want to have a relation, I am all for that.

But if there's a situation where a birth parent, you know, went through the adoption process and wants to remain confidential for whatever reason, we must respect that as well. So I'm going to let you keep working on that and I really, really hope to be able to support something like this on the floor.

But this is the Second Committee that I've seen this in and it's the second time I've been mentioning significant concerns and I am not the kind of legislator that says I'm not going to watch this bill and then it comes to the floor and I forget all about it because I, you know, I won't.

So please continue to work on it. It is a very important issue and I would hate for it to not be able to move forward because we're not able to think about every person in this particular situation. Thank you.

Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to echo the comments of my Good friend Senator Dr. Weber, echo those concerns. I want to be able to help this author continue to work on this, but I 100% align myself with those comments. Ditto. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Vice Chair. And hopefully you can just address this in your close. It's my understanding that more than 16 states actually already have this law in place and there's no data for a lot of the fears that exist and rightfully so, and stories that that we're trying to give all sides thoughtfulness and the perspective that they all do.

The data simply doesn't show that this is harmful. So I'm hoping you'll address some of. That in your close.

Sarah Dr. Weber Pearson yeah, Just one. More thing from a person who looks at data. You have to ensure that your data set is correct. And if you don't have people from the other side that are willing to to come out because they want to remain anonymous, then your primary data set that you are evaluating is flawed.

And even when you're doing surveys, surveys are based on people who respond. Think about how many surveys you get and whether or not you put your input in there. So you have to look at the data set and who's inputting the data and whether or not it's actually from all sides.

So I just want to put that out there from a scientific standpoint.

Okay. I wow. I mean, I appreciate the send off on my last health Committee. Appreciate it. What a robust conversation. And I hope no one in the audience took away from us that we do not value your stories. Very important. We take them so seriously that we don't take these votes lightly.

Just a reminder, this is the second year of the legislative session. We are one of the last line of defense of these bills. Oftentimes we do say keep working on it. There's not a lot of time left to keep working on it. It gets out of this policy Committee. It gets out of this policy Committee.

We can ask the author if she has a commitment to it, but she's gotten out of two policy committees without having to take anything. I don't know if she will amend this bill moving forward, but with that I will. You may now close.

So one I like I said, I think we started this saying that this is a very emotionally driven bill for so many. I think that everything that everybody said is legitimate in so many ways. However, as much as we, you know, talk about the rights of the mother, the kids have rights too.

And when you are stripping somebody from their identity and again, you know, making a burdensome process and we're talking about the impact of the mother and the impact of this and the impact of that.

We are also talking about the impact of policy when it comes to these changes and how it impacts fiscally how other departments talk about it, what, what we are concerned with.

We have actually taken amendments in other committees and we are going to continue to work on this bill as best as possible as it moves through the Legislature.

But I also just want to again highlight the fact that many of the things that were discussed, there are laws on the books for it to protect women, to allow women to give their child, to relinquish their rights, to do so many different things.

And yet these children, and we've heard even from people who are 80 years old, that struggle. If it wasn't an important issue, they wouldn't be here at 80 years old talking about this particular bill because it's such a significant part of a human being's life to know who your parents are.

You as an adult can choose not to have contact with your parent, cut people off and much more.

So I want to say that again, this bill is incredibly important to so many people that are also voiceless, that are also not here, that are also deeply, deeply concerned and have a big hole in their heart because they don't know where they come from.

And it's more than just race and gender and religion and culture and things like that. It is so much about somebody's identity. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motion in front of us is a do pass as amended and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Please call the roll. The motion was made by our Vice Chair, Senator Valladares.

[Roll call]

Senator, that currently has a vote of 6 to 0. We do have one missing Member, but as it currently stands, it has enough to get out. We'll put it on hold on call. That concludes the business of. That concludes the business for our our bills. We are looking for our last Member.

We need to know if they will be coming. Opening the open the rol. So Senate Health will take a quick recess. Senate Committee on Health is back in session. Committee Assistant. If we can please open the roll call on file. Item one, SB381. Motion is ready made.

The motion is do pass as amended and re referred to the Committee and Appropriations. The current vote is 6 to 0. [Roll call]

That bill is out with the vote count of 7 to 0. Can you please open the roll call on Fire Item 2, SB400.

The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 8 to 0. [Roll call]

With the vote count of nine to zero, that bill is out. And to the 300 people in the audience, thank you so much for my last Committee on Senate Health. It was an honor. Thank you for this wonderful team, both the Republican consultant and my awesome team. You're not getting rid of me.

I'll see y'all but a little further away down the Chair, the Senate Health Committee or the Committee. The Senate Committee on Health has adjourned.