Assembly Standing Committee on Judiciary

Welcome everyone to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. We don't have quorum, but we will go ahead and proceed as a Subcommitee with the Members that are here. And in order for us to complete our agenda and allow everyone equal time, the rules for witness testimony are each side will be allowed two main witnesses.

Each witnesses will have approximately two minutes to testify in support of or opposition to the Bill. And additional witnesses should state only their names, organization, if any, and their position on the Bill. As you proceed with witnesses and public comment, want to make sure one understands the Committee has rules to ensure a fair and efficient hearing.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, the rules for today's hearing include no talking or loud noises from the audience.

Public comment may be provided only at the designated time and must again be limited to your name, organization and support or opposition of a Bill before the Committee. Comments on other issues will be ruled out of order and the microphone may be disconnected.

No engaging in conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing. And we have. We have. First item we have up is item one, AB 1657. Assembly Member Rogers, who's here?

Okay, so we'll go on to the next one in line. AB 1660. Assemblymember Schiavo. I'm sure she doesn't mind. I'm sure she doesn't mind.

Ready? Okay. Ready? Okay to go?

All right. Whenever you're ready to go. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Committee. Very happy to be presenting my first bill of the year. Yay. So, AB 1660, which strengthens existing probate code to ensure financial institutions comply promptly with lawful requests from the county official responsible for managing assets of vulnerable individuals and the deceased.

And before I get started, I wanted to thank Committee staff for their analysis. I also wanted to let you know it's our intent to make an amendment to change the shall to may for the penalty and allow for judicial discretion. So that. I just wanted to make sure that was clear before we move on.

Under current law, county public administrators, public guardians and public conservators are granted clear legal authority to access financial information and take control of assets when necessary to administer estates or protect vulnerable individuals. When these officials present a valid certificate of authority. Financial institutions are already required by existing 30 year statute to provide information and surrender property.

And they are expressly prohibited from liability when they comply with current law. However, current law contains no meaningful enforcement mechanism when financial institutions fail to comply. So there's literally no teeth to this law around enforcement. As a result, county officials routinely experience prolonged delays, sometimes for months, even for years, when attempting to access accounts and assets.

These delays can lead to unpaid bills, late fees, delays in probate proceedings, and disruption in care for vulnerable individuals who- whose assets must be managed for their benefit. AB 1660 does not impose new duties on financial institutions.

Instead, it establishes a modest enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with obligations that have already existed, as I said, for over 30 years. The bill allows for courts to impose modest penalties of no less than $1,000 when financial institutions fail to comply with the lawful request.

This provides a practical incentive for timely compliance and reinforces accountability within the system. Ultimately, AB 1660 helps ensure that the public officials responsible for protecting estates, minors and conservatees can carry out their duties without unnecessary delay when financial institutions disregard clear legal obligations.

With me today to testify and support is Trent Smith, representing the California Association of Public Administrators, Guardians and Conservators, and Lisa Proft, who's chief deputy and principal deputy Public Administrator for LA County.

Thank you.

Good morning. I am Lisa Proft. I am the Chief Deputy, LA County Treasurer, Tax Collector. I'm also the principal deputy public administrator. I have been a public administrator for about 12 years now. Prior to that, I worked for County Council. I have a law degree, so that's my background. Just to give you an idea.

So I'm testifying today in support of this bill because in my role as a public administrator and my staff, we go into banks regularly, regularly, every day. There are 6,000 cases, open cases in LA County alone. We go in and we say, hello, I'm the public administrator. Here's my badge, here's my government ID.

Please give me information about this deceased person's account. And then the bank officials will say to us, no, thank you, Patriot act, money laundering, we don't believe you. Go away, send us more information. And then we spend the next year to three years trying to get information, trying to collect accounts.

The horror stories I won't bore you completely with, but I will tell you that I have staff that sit in bank- in bank offices, branches, sorry, bank branches.

And they sit there for 6-7-8 up their entire shift just waiting to speak to the bank manager whom they made an appointment with prior to going in just to talk to that person and show them their identification and show them what- what their authority is. And routinely it's like, nope, we can't give you that information.

I was on the phone yesterday with my favorite Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo said to me, great, yes, no problem, we understand. I'm speaking to the estate section. So these are people who supposedly know how to deal with dead people's stuff. And what does he say to me on the phone? Great. No problem. I got you completely authenticated.

Now give me your home address. Excuse me, why do you need my home address? Oh, because I need to run a LexisNexis on you just to make sure you're who you say you are. Okay, then you don't understand anything I just said. I'm a government official, right? A government official.

I have a copy of my badge, you have a copy of my ID, and I'm on the phone with you for 45 minutes for you to ask me for my Social Security number. Thank you.

You can finish up.

Social Security number and my personal home address. And I say to them regularly, don't you understand? It's not Lisa who's collecting this money. It's the public administrator under state statute. So we need people to understand what we're trying to do.

They need to understand the work that we are mandated to do, and we need them to follow the statute. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Trent Smith, on behalf of the California State Association of Public Administrators, public conservators, and I want to make the Committee very aware that we did not rush the Legislature with a bill to impose fines on financial institutions. We have been considering this for years and years now.

And three years ago, we actually met with California Bankers Association and some of their attorneys to outline the problems that you've just heard, hoping that there would be some movement on their side to come up with some new standards, training, education to get them to comply or work with us on something that would help them comply.

We wrote an article for their trade magazine, which they kindly printed. We thought, well, maybe that would help with some of the education. We offered to do training at their conferences, something to help them get educated.

And that's really what needs to happen, as there appears to be some ignorance of what a public administrator does, their authority, and trying to get some people to understand how this process works. And it just hasn't happened.

So we could have come forward with a bill to mandate this training and education, but we thought, well, the bank should come up with their own processes. But we wanted to have something hanging out there as a little bit of a hammer if they didn't comply.

And that would be allowing a judge to decide that they are acting in poor and without good faith and not- not complying. We have had conversations with the banks recently to say, what does it take?

And you've seen in their letter they would like some sort of conformity among all 58 counties, and we are discussing with them some sort of a statutory form. If you look in current law, there is a statutory form for public guardians and public conservators.

So we're working to come up with some sort of a standardized form for public administrators, hoping that may help them comply. But in the meantime, we think it's important to have something out there if they don't comply.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1660? Name organization, if any, position on the bill?

Thank you. Natasha Rangel, Riverside County Public Administrator in supportive.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is the public administrator in support.

Thank you.

Brett Rhodes, Chief Deputy Public Administrator County Marin, support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Danielle Bradley, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair, Members. Malik Bynum, on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1660.

Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Shultz with the California Bankers Association. Our members oppose the new penalties. We have been working productively with the author and the sponsors.

Pull the mic a little closer. Thanks.

But this bill will receive only two committee hearings, so I do feel a need to put our concerns on the record. The structure of this bill is basically the existing statute works great, but we need to add penalties to ensure compliance. If the proponents testified that the existing statute worked 80% of the time and we needed penalties for the 20% of the time when folks were, when it wasn't working correctly, that would be one thing.

But in our conversations, this statute works very seldom that they don't get great compliance from banks or credit unions or life insurance or retirement funds. These are all compliance driven entities. So if they're not routinely following the law in this case, it leads me to wonder, does the underlying statute work?

Combating frauds and scams is a top priority for all financial institutions. And I wonder whether this statute drafted an era before the threat and scam environment we face today, whether the underlying statute is correct. The statute tells financial institutions, don't validate the written certification, don't ask for a death certificate, don't ask for a court order.

In practice, the financial institution is effectively the only check on this before the money goes out the door. The statute directs them to not ask for the same documentation they would ask for in almost every other estate or probate case. So we're working productively with the author and sponsors, but we don't think new penalties are right answer here. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 1660?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the California Credit Union League. We have an opposed unless amended position, and I would echo the concerns outlined by my colleague at the California Bankers Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Alex Torres on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. Align our comments with our colleagues. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to committee. Yes. Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you. Maybe somebody from the industry or the Bankers Association who spoke would come forward to the microphone. Pardon me. He tried to run away. Thank you, sir. If you could please just edify the comments that the sponsor of this bill made about repeated attempts to just meet with the bank financial institution manager.

I know that is not necessarily in your organization, but what is driving that? Is it because the statute, as you just said, is not clear? It just seems there's just unnecessary frustration here that could be easily resolved without fines and penalties.

Thank you, Assembly Member Dixon. It's hard to defend the conduct that's described. I don't know exactly what was described. But the bill applies to banks and credit unions, but also to life insurance companies that don't have branches, to pension funds that don't have branches.

So what I'm learning from our members is I think it used to be that the public administrator would walk into a local bank branch and say, hey, here's my paperwork, open the books and records. In the current fraud and scams environment, that bank branch manager is no longer authorized to just open. They send, they take the documentation, they send it to central kind of legal estates processing to deal with.

It does sound like there are probably some delays in getting back to folks. But I think in the prior environment there was a relationship between the local public administrator and the local bank branch manager and in the current threat environment that they're just not authorized to do that anymore. That gets sent to headquarters legal.

I would just give that thought the benefit of the doubt because practices, banking practices have changed and it seems so... Thank you very much. I'll ask the author. Have you had these discussions? If you want to just comment on some practical solutions to this that's created a problem.

I recognize what the public administrator is saying. That's very frustrating. It's a waste of everybody's time. How can we clean up this process and make it more efficient?

I mean, the stories that I've heard is, like Lisa shared today, people waiting around in a bank for six hours trying to meet with a branch manager or calling some bank attorney in North Carolina, trying to get a call back for months and months and months. Right.

And so I guess it strikes me a little bit funny when if you're concerned, so concerned about fraud, why wouldn't you have those conversations? Why wouldn't you call that person back? Why wouldn't you meet with the person you have a meeting set up with?

And so, you know, I think the point that the banks are making is true. I think that, you know, things have changed and you don't have the relationship. I think the experience in, you know, small rural areas where they do know the person is very different than LA County where there's more bank turnover, there's not training.

But as you heard, you know, our sponsors have attempted to offer training, offer education, come, you know, have open conversations three years ago to try to address this conversation and address this issue and the banks really haven't come forward with any solutions.

And you know, and I think we're not trying to get into the day to day business of banks on how they're going to do training and train their folks. Maybe they need to have a department where attorneys are especially, you know, informed and trained on this issue and centralize it, whatever, however they want to do it.

But in reality, you know, this is, it is actually creating more fraud because when you don't freeze an account and now someone who has been helping someone who passed away has access to their checkbook and can write a $10,000 check to themselves, now they can drain those accounts.

And there's examples of, you know, someone coming into the bank with their bank information completely draining $150,000 out of their account. And if they had followed the law and frozen the account as they should have according to current statute, that would have been protected and then it would have been turned over.

But people, you know, they're not able to get dollars that they need for burials or care, you know, in long term care for people. Really serious impacts as these delays go on and on.

Well, I don't dispute that, and I think your bill is well intentioned. I guess I'm just trying to get my head around why can't there, if the statute already says freeze the account, show cause of death or death certificate. Why isn't as simple matter as that? What needs to... What is the real, what should the law really say to clarify that action to allow the public administrators to come in?

And I mean that's the thing, the law already says that. And so as Trent mentioned, there's conversations around making sure that there's a standardized form for all. There's a standardized form for two of the public rules. But the third one, now we need to make sure that that's standardized too.

And maybe we make sure that it has in there that you must freeze the account so it's very clear when presented. But it's also already existing in law. So I don't think the law needs to be improved. It exists, they just need to enforce it.

I do agree with you. I commend your efforts to try to solve this problem. This just seems like a bureaucratic nightmare and people's lives are affected and families, all of that. I just would hope you could work out a situation. I don't like the penalties. I don't know even if they're effective. I mean after a bank could afford...

A lot of thousand dollar penalties.

I don't like that. But I think there's a solution sitting right here if you all just get in a room and hammer it out.

It's a lot of banks and financial institutions and...

Well, the national organizations. I mean, those are where the standards...

But how does that trickle down to the local branches, the local person who answers the phone?

Well, the California Bankers Association kind of represents the industry or the credit unions have their own industry representative. I just think that this bill is punitive. I think you've got a legitimate problem. I think there's a better way to solve it. So I don't have that solution sitting right here. But I would hope that you can come up with it.

And just to be clear, in statute it says they are not liable, right? If they comply with the law as written, they are not liable. So if for some reason there is a fraudulent person coming in trying to get access, then they are not liable for that. But they're allowing that fraudulent practice to happen.

It's more, much more likely and much more common that it happens in the reverse. That they don't freeze the assets, that they don't take action and turn it over to a public administrator, and that someone else has access to those accounts and is able to fraudulently get those dollars.

All right. I just hope we can work it out. Thank you.

Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author. I will say that I believe that the motion today will be to move this to Banking Committee. So I think it's important that I will speak to the jurisdiction of this committee.

And I do think, I mean, I agree with my colleague here that we probably need to modernize the statute to work with today's fraud and make sure the banks have the room to do what they need to do. And that feels fully within the jurisdiction of the Banking Committee to make sure the banking processes are working.

So I hope you'll work on that in Banking Committee, but I don't think it's the nature of this conversation. But I wanted to say that I really do appreciate you taking a look at the penalties which we're looking at today and making them in the discretion of the judge.

Because I think in this situation that the bankers are talking about where there is a delay because they have a reason to believe there is fraud and they really are taking extra steps, I imagine a judge would not put these penalties into place and the statute as written before this committee would have made them.

And so I do think that judicial discretion change that you committed to on the record today is critical to allowing for banks to do what needs to be done to protect people in wherever the fraud is coming from, to your point. And so I appreciate that change. And with that, I'd be happy to move it once we establish quorum.

Assembly Member Zbur.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Schiavo. You know, I wanted to sort of say that I think that there's a need for this bill. I had my own experiences. I had both a sister pass away and a mother pass away.

And while they weren't in the same role as the, as the public administrator's experience, significant frustration with banks not complying with what they should have complied with when I actually had powers of attorney and was executor and was turning over all of the information that a bank should have relied on.

And frankly, the bank said that they wouldn't have their lawyers look at it because it was too much risk for them and that I had to go to the court in order to get access to the bank records. So there is an issue that I know you're trying to fix as a valid one, and I think it's...

And on the other side of this, I do worry a bit about whether there's actual fraud. I think there could be some public administrators that actually could in some places, and it's not even small places.

It could be in urban places where you actually have people coming in and defrauding someone when they don't need to and when there aren't adequate protections. So I do think, as I concur with my colleague, this should be modernized a bit.

You know, it sounds like what the banks are coming in is saying, don't put a penalty on us because we need to do something more than comply with the law in order to protect against fraud. Well, if that's the case, then let's modernize the bill to do what we need to do to protect against fraud. And that seems to me the core issue here. I'm going to support this today.

I think that it's an important conversation to be having about sort of how well public administrators and, you know, I know this is outside the scope of the bill, but how people generally are being able to get access to records of their loved ones that have passed away or may be incapacitated.

And I'd encourage you to continue working with folks in the banking industry to understand what it is that they think they need to do in order to protect against fraud that's outside the scope of what the law requires now. So thank you.

Right. Thank you. And I agree. And I, we're happy to continue conversations. We've been having productive conversations thus far and would you know, really be thrilled to hear from banks kind of what processes they think would provide those kinds of protections against fraud because that's a huge concern of mine.

I actually have another bill, AB 2674, addressing fraud in banking. And it's funny because I literally had a meeting with the banks last week opposing this bill to prevent fraud and saying as part of their argument to me, well, this is people's money and we can't get in between them and their money, essentially.

And then literally public administrators came in to me in the next meeting saying banks are telling us they won't give us people's money. That's our money. Right. So I hope that we can come together on both bills to address fraud and prevent it.

But you know, again, it's just we're not hearing that public administrators fraudulently trying to get these funds and somehow personally benefiting off of them is actually a problem. Like it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist.

And much more common is the problem where, you know, people who have access somehow are taking those funds when they should have been frozen and they should have been turned over to public administrators already.

Great, thank you. If we can have establishment on quorum real quick.

[Roll Call]

Right, quorum established. I would like to welcome, as our new Vice Chair, Assembly Member Macedo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, exciting. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's an honor to serve. This is my first bill I'm hearing as the Vice Chair of Judiciary. So thank you for having me. I think we all agree with the premise of the bill. It's the implementation of it that seems to be, there's a little bit of a rub. What's exciting to me is it seems like there is a path that we can kind of get where we need to go.

So my questions are, under the existing statute, what percentage of financial institutions, insurance companies, brokerages, and retirement funds respond promptly to a request from a public administrator, public guardian, and public conservator? Do you know that?

What's your experience?

Less than 5%.

So we're adding penalties to what percentage of cases then?

95%.

So 95% of the cases currently would qualify for this thousand dollar per case penalty?

There's overwhelming non-compliance, which is why we feel like it needs some teeth.

So do government entities and retirement funds do a better job compared to these financial institutions with complying with the existing statute?

Generally speaking, yes, because we have relationships with them generally.

But they do violate the statute?

They do occasionally violate.

So that's where then I don't believe this bill is non-fiscal because there's new penalties added to government and retirement fund administrators. So currently this is going straight to the floor for a vote, but I do believe that there is a fiscal price tag. It does go to Banking?

No, it's not going to Banking.

It's going straight to the floor. So I, and I would agree. That's why I think, you know, to the concerns that have been expressed by my colleagues, I think those need to be figured out before it gets to the floor. And I do think that this has a fiscal impact because potentially government agencies could be paying this thousand dollars per case fee or penalty.

Well, I think... Yeah, if I... Right. Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. So for all the new Members who came in, because there were a few. And I get it. We've committed to changing the required penalty from a shall to may and allowing for judicial discretion.

So it's not a required penal, it's not a mandatory penalty. So that's a change we're committed to make. And we've also committed to ongoing conversations with opposition if there are other ways that the statute needs to be updated.

But I think, I don't know, I think that's a kind of tenuous fiscal argument. Because I think you could say, especially if banks are 95% not complying and the ones who would be paying most of the fees that is actually going to go to a public agency. And so how do you balance all of that out? Right.

They're going to pay back for all the time that they wasted waiting in, you know, six hours for a bank manager to come and meet with them in one day. So that's going to be paid back to a public agency. So it's, I mean, I imagine it's hard to circle that math around that map out.

And I understand that. She just said that, yes, this does happen. And even with judicial discretion that is telling us at some point it's going to cost the government money. So with the Chair, I think that we need to reevaluate that there is a potential fiscal impact of this bill before it progresses for a floor vote. That's kind of my only point. But thank you.

Well, as long as you weigh in how the public will benefit from receiving those, I think that that's a fair analysis.

Assembly Member Bryan.

No, I just want to say welcome, Madam Vice Chair. The Chair of the Appropriations Committee can also, of course, call this bill into Appropriations if she sees fit. I think it's been my experience that bills that don't impose a state mandate, because it is a may, don't have to go to Appropriations.

But even if it did, it might not meet the minimum threshold. I think that's a whole entirely different conversation than this conversation. I'm glad that you're talking with opposition, and I'm hopeful that maybe we can find a smoother landing spot by the time it hits the floor.

Assembly Member Pacheco.

Thank you. And thank you to the author. I know we talked briefly about your bill yesterday, and I want to commend you for working with opposition. I do feel more comfortable that you are amending your bill today and amending it from shall to may. I think that makes a big difference, allowing the courts to have judicial discretion.

And I am looking forward to continued conversations to perfect this bill. I do agree with you that something needs to be done. And so I'm hopeful that conversations will continue and looking forward to seeing it on the floor. Thank you.

Procedurally, just as my colleague mentioned about us not going, we thought it was going to the Banking and Finance Committee. And that's, I sit on that committee and I was looking forward to that continued discussion. So procedurally, Mr. Chair, can we recommend that it go to a dual resource? No?

No, it's not my... Yeah, that's not my... Yeah, it's already been referred. That's not, you know, we're here to look at the issues as it applies Judiciary. Why it was or was not referred to different committees, it's not our place. We can make recommendations. Certainly I have every right to do that, as have a couple of you.

I would form a motion, I guess. I'm sorry.

It's under probate law I think is why it's here.

Since I really thought I was having that second conversation, as noted in my comments. Well, I just want to thank our colleague from Los Angeles for his comments. I would also note that it would have no fiscal impact on the state if the state complies with the law. So potentially it has zero fiscal impact.

And I find it odd that we would have laws with no enforcement. If we think a law is important enough to put on the books, there should be a mechanism to enforce the law. So I think that the fact that we're adding enforcement to a law seems obvious. Yeah. So let me just say that. But I do think the conversations with around the banks and the way they function and modernizing it for fraud is really, really critical.

You know, as the Chair of the Privacy Committee, we focus every day on the fact that there are new technologies every day that is making it easier and easier to mimic a voice, to show up on a Zoom looking like someone and sounding like someone and demanding things.

I mean, these are real things that our financial institutions are on the front lines of dealing with. And so I do want to make sure that we are both allowing the public administrators to do their job and do it in efficient way and there should be enforcement for that.

And the financial institutions are doing their job of protecting Californians. And so I think the ongoing conversations are critical and hopefully you can just opt to bring the Banking Chair into those conversations.

And Mr. Chair, if I might maybe a comment that would help some of this. We are having conversations about modernizing the code with regards to putting a standardized form because that's what we've heard. That's like every county has a different form. You know, we want to make sure it's got a county seal, it's got everything they need to know that we may have.

While the banking industry has modernized, one solution that is very elementary and goes back a long time is a phone call is if a LA County Public Administrator shows up in a bank or sends information to a retirement account and they're concerned that it might be fraudulent, they can, very quickly, as I did this morning, took me 30 seconds to look up the LA County Public Administrator's Office.

They have an email and a phone number. They could call and say, we just received a request from Lisa Proft of the LA County Public Administrator's Office. Can you please confirm she is in fact an employee there and she has that authority? And I think that goes a long way into helping people understand that there is, you know, these people are legitimately there doing their work.

Okay, yeah. Madam Vice Chair.

I would like to make a motion do pass and re-refer to Banking.

There's already a motion.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, we have a motion. I'm comfortable with the motion on the floor, given the conversations that have occurred. Any other questions or comments? And Assembly Member, how long has this underlying law been in effect?

Over 30 years.

Okay. So I just want to, for 30 years this has been the law. We're not talking about something that was just put into statute 2-3 years ago. And hey, it's not really working the way we intended. It's not working the way we intended because the banks are just not complying. And there's nothing that's...

And they made a business decision, a very easy one, because there's no penalty for them to not comply. This is simply saying that, hey, a judge may authorize a $1,000 penalty. The public administrators are not going to go to court on every single situation where they're not getting the records immediately.

It's going to be those egregious cases because we know our public entities don't have all the lawyers at, all the legal hours that they can invest into something like this. What it will do, though, and what it is already doing, as evidenced by the conversation here, is getting the banks to show up at the table.

If this bill wasn't introduced, 30 years would turn into 31 years, would turn into 32 years, and nothing would change. So I'm glad to see the banks are actually showing up and saying, hey, wait a second, we don't like the underlying law. Okay, well, you've had 30 years to come to us and say, hey, you know what?

This underlying law, we'd like to comply. But these are some of the issues. Things have changed a little bit. You know, understandably in agreement that fraud now is more difficult to identify than ever. So, hey, why don't we have a uniform form? Why don't we have certain things to ensure that we're complying in a way that's effective and efficient for us?

But they haven't done that. This bill's been introduced and they're finally coming to the table. And we should be grateful, I believe, to the author for authoring the bill, for getting the banks to the table after 30 years. Of a bill, of a statute that they have not complied with, intentionally not complied with. So I think that there might be some other good that comes out of this.

If the good that does come out of it allows our public administrators and public guardians to get access to these funds more quickly and not have them subject to a lot of fraud and misuse because it's taking months or longer to get access to those funds.

That's a net positive for our community, and that by itself would be a win. I think the additional win will be these conversations that are now being forced to happen because this bill has been introduced that's finally getting the banks to the table after three decades. So I support it.

I also support continuing conversations if there are meaningful changes that the banks can bring to the table. Fantastic. Whether it's in this bill or another bill, I think that we should all be all ears about that, because we also want to make sure that we're supporting our banks in preventing fraud in every, in every aspect.

And so with that, this does have a do pass recommendation. The amendments will be taken, the language will be submitted, and the amendments will be up on the floor. And in the meantime, the conversations, I imagine, will continue. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Members, appreciate the conversation. I mean, as we've heard this is a real problem. Even the banks are saying this is a real problem. So we look forward to continued conversations to try to address this.

And I'm glad that they are so very concerned about fraud because I would love for them to support my other bill that is addressing fraud in banks. And you know, making sure that we are doing all that we can to protect folks is a huge priority for me. We, you know, look forward to continuous conversations that are productive to make strides on that space as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we can get have a roll call vote for AB 1660, please?

Motion is do pass to the floor. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out.

We'll call up Assembly Member Rogers. And in the meantime, if we can have a motion on the consent calendar. And the motion. Is there a second? A motion.

Consent includes AB 1597. Castillo, consent to the floor. AB 1651. Dixon, consent to privacy and consumer protection. And AB 1652. Patterson, consent to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar is out. Assembly Member Rogers, whenever you're ready.

Thank you so much. Mr. Chair. I'm here to present AB 1675. I'm going to start by accepting the Committee amendments. And I really want to thank the Committee staff for helping us work through some of the technical aspects of the Bill.

What we know, what the data shows, is that the most perilous time for a domestic violence violent survivor is when they first leave and when they're first seeking justice.

And yet some of our courts impose a requirement where domestic violence survivors who are filing for a temporary restraining order must sign an affidavit affirming that they have notified their alleged abuser that they're going to file a temporary restraining order before they're allowed to even file the paperwork.

This creates an unnecessary gap and an unnecessary risk for domestic violence survivors. It puts them in further jeopardy and it has a chilling effect on allowing them to actually participate in the process and ultimately seek a better life. My witness today is Sonoma County's fantastic district attorney, Carla Rodriguez.

Want to thank her as well as the Family Justice Network for working with us on this Bill and for bringing this to our attention.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me. Certainly we're living in very difficult times right now. My office's number one priority has always been serving victims of crime. We're a very victim centric office. We run a local family justice center, as I'm sure many of your jurisdictions do.

Everyone is afraid to make a report right now, not just because they're afraid of their abusers, but now they're even more afraid of the authorities. They're afraid of federal immigration authorities. Everyone is simply afraid. And so we're trying to do as much as we can to support victims.

And one of the ways we can support them is by not requiring them to serve their abuser with notice of a restraining order prior to actually going to court to have that hearing. It's hard to serve people, especially when they don't want to be served.

And for someone who's a survivor of violence, maybe trying to juggle a job or two jobs or three jobs and a child or two, and their safety and a place to live, it's a lot. So we're in full support of assemblymember Rogers proposed Bill.

We think it'll alleviate some of the stress on survivors of domestic violence, elder abuse, etc. And we appreciate your consideration very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1657? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1657? We'll bring it back to Committee for any motions, questions. Second we have a motion and a second Assembly Member, Stefani.

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and I would love to be added as a co author, as a former prosecutor. And I also want to thank the DA for being here.

I'm shocked sometimes at what I see in our codes that continue to put up barriers to victims and survivors of domestic violence. Last year I had a Bill that would allow us to inform victims of domestic violence that they actually didn't have to go to court, that they could do these restraining order motions ex parte.

But that was held in Senate Appropriations. And I did that Bill because when a victim in San Diego showed up, her abuser knew she would be there. She was there with a new partner. She, he was there with a gun. He shot her and her new partner and killed them both.

There are not enough protections in the code for victims and survivors of domestic violence. And it is beyond frustrating to me. And I speak from years of experience watching a mother go through a 41 year domestic violence relationship and it took her that so long to get out of it.

She was married to a highway patrolman and the systems did not work for her. And so I can't thank you enough for bringing this forward. We do not do enough for domestic violence victims and it's about time we do. So thank you so much for bringing this forward and please add me as a co author.

Absolutely. Assembly Member Pacheco.

I also want to thank the author for bringing this important Bill forward and would love to be added as a co author as well.

Absolutely. Assembly Member Bauer Kahan.

All the women are going to jump on as co authors, which might put some pressure on our men. But yes, but no, I'd like to be added as well. And my understanding, because we looked into this in our counties after we saw this Bill is not every county is doing this also, which is interesting.

So this is really just lining up counties like yours with the rest of the counties that are already protecting survivors in this way. So thank you so much and I'd be delighted to be added.

Thank you. Assembly Member Dixon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I commend you for doing this well. And I would like to be added as co author. Thank you.

Thank you. Is that Assembly Member Connolly? Any other questions or comments for anyone? I, I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think, to Assemblymember Bauer Kahan's point, just having uniformity in itself will be valuable. The fact that some counties are treating it differently.

But the when a domestic violence restraining order, especially those first hours, even not even days, is sought, that's the most dangerous, most perilous time for most victims. And it's the time when government should be most protective of those coming forward.

There are still subsequent hearings that would occur in efforts to make a restraining order permanent that would allow for access for the subject that the restraining order is applied to. So they'll still have their quote unquote day in court.

But I think the primary responsibility in these scenarios is for us to protect the victim, especially the amount of courage it takes. Oftentimes when a restraining order is sought, it's after months or even years of abuse. And so it takes a lot of courage to even take that step.

And before they even get to court, if their abuser is aware of it, convinces them not to go to court. Many different methods could be used, of course, including very violent methods. The number one cause of death for pregnant women is murder by their partner. We have to be very aware of what's happening in our community.

To understand why this legislation is necessary. I would also like to be added as co author. Would you like to close?

First of all, thank you all so much. And I do. I just want to say thank you to the Family Justice Center. This is one of those times where I feel like the. The system works. They found an issue, they've seen an issue. Trying to support survivors, they brought it to their local legislator.

As we started to look into it, our district attorney, who's been prioritizing these issues, engaged on it, started working on the issues. So it doesn't apply to every county, not every county is doing it that way, but we certainly know that we can do a better job.

Across California and especially in the Sonoma County community, folks have coalesced around being able to make a difference for survivors. So with that, I just want to thank you all for the support. We'll add all of you as co authors who are interested, anybody who's watching who says they'd like to join as well.

But I respectfully ask for the aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you. And up Next we have AB 1643 Assembly Member win.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. We talked about public guardians, talked about domestic violence victims. How about we talk about childhood poverty and reducing childhood poverty? I'm pleased to present AB 1643 which helps reduce childhood poverty in California by streamlining the application process for child support services after a court hears and finalizes an order.

In the last five years, California's child poverty rate has increased nearly threefold, jumping from 7.5% in 2021 all the way up to 18.6% in 2024. We know that childhood poverty may have negative effects on children, leading to academic underachievement, causing behavior problems, as well social and emotional issues which may carry into adulthood.

Child support has been one of the most effective anti-poverty programs for children, helping to keep 1.4 million families out of poverty throughout the nation. California unfortunately has one of the lowest utilization rate of the program in the country. This Bill increases participation in California's child support program by automatically, automatically, enrolling custodial parents into child support services, once a court finalizes a support order.

Traditionally after court finalizes it, the custodial parent must opt in by applying to child support services for the order to be enforced. AB 1643 modernizes this process, replacing it with the simple option to opt out in receiving services, which has been shown to improve usage of the program.

Joining me today is Lauren Andaland from Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Lauren Wesche. I'm here on behalf of the California Child Support Association in support of AB 1643. The goal of this Bill is simple: when a judge orders child support, the system should actually help families collect it.

AB 1643 makes it easier for families with child support orders to access services that help track payments and ensure that the support reaches those children. The Bill simply treats a child support order as an application for services while preserving a clear and easy opt out for any parent who does not want assistance.

Participation remains completely voluntary and parents can decline services at any time. This Bill does not charge families to open a case. There is no application fee for child support services. The only fee in the program is a $35 annual federal fee set by federal law, not the state, and it is only assessed after $500 in support is collected.

This measure is about making it easier for families with existing support orders to access the tools that help ensure those orders actually work.

With me today is Dallin Frederickson, Director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services, who can speak to how the program works and why increasing access can reduce child poverty. Thank you and I'll turn it over to Director Frederickson.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Dallin Frederickson, the Director of the Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services and the California Child Support Association is supporting AB 1643 because child poverty in California is embarrassingly high.

This is a state where we have lots of economic opportunity, we have lots of resources, and yet only Louisiana and Florida have higher rates of child poverty than California. It shouldn't be that way. There is a lot of research indicating that the child support program is an incredibly effective anti-poverty program.

Studies show that the child support lifts children out of poverty by 5% to 9%, depending on which study you look at. Right now, just in Sacramento County, my Department is sending $11 million every month home to families putting food on the table and shoes on children's feet. It's an incredible anti-poverty program.

Unfortunately, the child support program in California is underutilized. Nationwide, there is an open child support services case for one in every six children nationwide. In California, there's an open child support case for one in every nine children. We are under serving our population. We have a great program, but it is not being utilized.

This Bill will make it easier for parents to enroll in child support services. The court will transmit the information to the local child support agency for easy case opening. The parent does—if the parent does not want services, they can decline services. By making enrollment easy, it will help parents receive services they need.

Accounting for payments, employer income withholding, modification of support when circumstances change, intercepting federal tax refund, all of the kinds of things that parents need to help collect child support. In addition to relieving poverty, the child support program is incredibly beneficial in other ways. When child support is paid, there is more parental involvement.

There are better educational outcomes for children. There are fewer instances of abuse and neglect, there are lower levels of parental conflict. All of these benefits are associated with the child support program. This Bill will reduce child poverty without adding any additional burden on state budgets or taxpayers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 1643?

Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Elliot on behalf of the Counties of Solano and San Joaquin, both in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Michelle...on behalf of Yolo County, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1643?

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We apologize. We didn't get a letter in on time and we have concerns, but we are talking to the author's staff or talking to the sponsors of the Bill, and we hope we could find a resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

I want to thank the author for the conversations that we have had, and I think the goal here is obviously an important one. Everybody on this dais wants to ensure that children are receiving what they're entitled to and what they deserve and that California systems are working for them. So, I'll start there. I guess—currently, I have some questions.

Currently, what percent—you said one in nine children are receiving child support in California. So, that's about 10%-ish. What percentage of those child support cases are currently going through the child support services system?

Okay. So, so, so, nationwide, like I say, there's one in every six that are, that have an open child support services case. And in California, we have one in nine.

Oh, so, okay. So, one in nine is not how many people are getting child support, how many people are going through your system. Got it. So, it's about.

Yeah, to give you an idea of what that means, in California, statewide, in our child support services system, we have a million—we have a million children in the system.

Got it.

If we were at the national average, we would have 1.5 million. We would have 500,000 more cases if we were just at the national average. And there are some states that have higher rates, you know, one in four, you know, are participating in the child support program. Right? And it's not a matter of demographics.

California has, on average, has the same number of intact families, you know, percentage of intact families...and that kind of thing.

I would assume so.

Yeah.

We're not doing better than other states as it relates to divorce. So, I mean, interestingly, look, an opt out and an opt in is a fight that we get into a lot in this building, as Privacy Chair, where we have a lot of opt ins that we know nobody actually opts in at the rate we want them to.

I understand why you want an opt out. So, let me be clear. Yes, you will have significantly more participation because people do not opt out. That's the thing.

They don't opt in. They just—the status quo is what people do. I understand that the $35 fee is not a fee you are choosing to put on people. However, it's an annual fee that will now be put on people. And the analysis says that 89% of child support is being collected successfully in California.

So, I guess what I'm struggling with in this Bill and then, I also read online because I had to do some research because it wasn't cited in the analysis. If people now—so, the way your function works, which for people who need it, let me be clear, I think is really important.

If you have an acrimonious divorce, you have someone who's not paying, the service you guys are providing is really, really critical. But I also think that if we're collecting 90% of child support, the vast majority of cases in California are working, right? We have 11% where we're failing.

And that's not to say those 11% shouldn't be the focus of our efforts, but to opt 100% of people into this program to start paying fees. And then, my understanding, according to my online research, was then if they have—they pay you instead of their partner and then you pay the co parent, if they do so through credit card or debit, now they're paying an additional 2% on top because there are fees for that as well, which you may not keep, but just exist as a pass through. Is that correct?

If people pay by credit card, there is a fee, but very, very few pay. Most pay through employer income withholding, which is incredibly effective and convenient for parents.

So, are most of the 10% you're collecting low income families?

So, yeah, I wish—if you don't mind, I kind of wish, I kind of wish it were the circumstance you're describing, but we have, we have a situation where 30% of our families are not receiving any child support. And of the ones who are receiving child support, you know, there are 46% that are receiving the full amount.

There are huge amounts of uncollected child support.

In your program or overall statewide?

In California.

Well, so that's not what the analysis says. So, are you taking issue with the data and the analysis? It's at 89%.

I'm not sure which analysis you're saying, but in the program.

Committee analysis.

Yeah, in the program, we have a huge inventory of cases that we're working on all the time where the parent is unemployed or underemployed, the parent is missing, we're trying to find the parent, we're negotiating with the parent. And I wish we had an 89% compliance rate. If we did, that would be awesome.

I would love to retire. I would love if that were the circumstance. We're not seeing those kind of rates. We're seeing rates where of current support due in California, every month, we're collecting about 65% of current support due and there are $18 billion of uncollected child support In California.

Oh, okay. There was an error in the analysis.

Actually, if we can—I'm just going to ask Manuela to go ahead and make the clarification on the record. No problem. No problem.

I apologize. It's 89% of child, child support payments on pass through child support, not overall child support orders. And this is.

That's important.

What does that mean by pass through?

Pass through—so, children who are receiving some form of public assistance and the payment is passed through and I can hand it over to...

One of these entities.

Yes, I.

Got it.

Yes. Does that help clarify?

And then, so, it's a shared understanding between Committee and the witness that overall levels are 60% ish?

This is information that was shared with the Committee from the sponsors based on the numbers that the sponsors collect themselves.

PowerPoint.

Yes.

Yeah. In Child Poverty California, it's from their report. So, yeah. So, it's the Committee staff, just to get some support.

If you don't, if you don't mind. I'm understanding now exactly what the 89% is. So, so, so, part of the child support collected is sent home to families. Part of it, if a family is currently on a public assistance grant, if they are currently receiving TANF, the CalWorks, then part of the money is sent home to the family and part of the money reimburses the public assistance program. Okay?

So, for that reason, not all of the money that we collect is sent home to families because part of it goes to reimbursement. Right now in California, 89% is sent home to families.

By the way, that's 48 out of 50 states we are sending home to families less than almost every other state because we have primarily cases in our caseload that were referred to us through public assistance. And we don't have all these other parents who need help, who never needed public servants at—public assistance.

They may very well be low income, they may very well need support services, but they weren't automatically referred to us through CalWORKS. And we have an extraordinarily high percentage of CalWORKS cases in California compared to other states. That's why we're 48 in the percent of pass through, which is that 89%. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry.

Sorry for the confusion.

No, and I apologize for the confusion on my point. And that will be clarified in an updated analysis. Thank you.

I appreciate that. We all make mistakes.

Just trying to make sure I'm operating on good facts.

It's so complicated.

So, I don't—I mean, look. I, I guess where I'm sitting, you know, I want to understand and I'm given what's happening in this room, I'm not sure I fully understand. I thought I did.

How much this is working and whether it makes sense because I did a back of the envelope calculation that would cost Californians tens of millions of dollars because there's so many people in California that are on child support that if we opted everyone in, they all stayed in.

It would be so many people that there's a lot of money being paid by Californians to these programs. For those for whom it would be beneficial, that makes sense to me, but an automatic opt in means we will have a lot of people on this program that, it's not clear to me, and again, I guess I need better data than I have today to understand if that is a rational decision for us to be making to put everyone on these programs, to be collecting fees from all these people, to be making it.

If you do have a divorce, where people have agreed to child support and there is co parenting that is positive and they are paying one another, I don't actually think they need to be in your program. Right? So, I don't know why we're opting those people in.

And so, I guess, you know, current law allows the judge to determine if they should be opted in. Right? So, judge can order them to be in your program, as I understood it from the analysis. You're also taking issue with that. So, maybe I can't read, I don't know, but.

So, I mean, I think there are ways to look at this. I'll be supporting the Bill today, but I think we need to take a hard look at whether opting every California in is a logical approach to ending child poverty.

I mean, ending child poverty is important, but we know that it's, you know, and it's a, it's a huge percentage and we need to break below the 18% we're at. But again, putting the 82% of families that are getting child support that are not in that category into this program. I don't know that it makes sense, frankly.

So, you know, I'll support it today to get the Bill moving, but I think we need to have real conversations of whether an automatic opt in is the right solution.

Sure. And I can I respond? Yeah. Thank you. I, I appreciate. I know we spoke a lot last night about this and why this is needed. And one of the areas I would say is that there is a percentage of families that are not—once the court order is there, there's another step that you have to take and that requires application, you know, all of that, right?

Filling out forms. And there are some families, especially those that are limited in English or afraid to do all these forms, that not move forward for that reason. Right?

And so, they struggle, they're not available for a lot of these services and they continue to struggle to make ends meet.

And that, that's part of the reason why we're running this, to ensure that those individuals are also being able to take advantage of this and that they're automatically opted in and they don't have to go through that, that other step.

Now, I know you and I spoke last night that there are some people that if they're not feeling out, maybe they don't, they don't need it and they're doing fine.

But there are a number of families of individuals where, with what's going on right now in our, in our country, our state, you know, they are afraid to complete another form of application in fear of something that that might happen.

Same reason why, you know, prior to here, I ran a nonprofit organization where we enrolled low income families into programs that they're, they're rightfully entitled to, right, because they're low income.

But many families chose not to enroll in it because they felt like being in this program would then send them back to where they came from or that they would have to pay all this back later on in the future. And that, you know, they're not going to be able to do that.

And so, they chose to struggle instead of taking advantage of many the social services programs that are available to them. Which is why I think this is one of the programs that we talked about where it's underutilized, for that reason.

There's just so many fear in so many families that are low income, underserved, that we know that that extra step deters them from doing that for whatever reason it may be. But I, I appreciate, you know, the conversation and the questions.

Assemblymember Bryan.

I'm going to support today for sure, but one, childhood poverty is high in California because poverty is high in California. Right? Child support is not going to end childhood poverty, nor is it going to end the poverty of the parents in many cases who are paying the child support.

So, I just want to be clear about the things we need to do as a Legislature to end childhood poverty are not rooted in modernizing our child support payments, although I think this is an important conversation. I do have concerns with the fees for things like part of my ignorance, but right now, if a court issues this child support schedule that is then worked out between the parents.

So, under, under existing law.

Like, I could just pay my spouse each month what the court has ordered, and that relationship is between she and I.

You could, you could do that.

And she and I could also decide for ourselves that, hey, I'll just pay tuition for the school at an amount greater to or equal to what the court has decided, because we're doing that, or we have flexibility to determine in what way I can best support my children and be in compliance with the order without my wages being garnished or her having to pay, assuming my spouse is a she, in this case, a $35 annual fee to a third party that then also takes us and our conversation out of the equation.

Right? Because the money goes through you and then to her. I don't know. I just have concerns with what that means for co-parenting. Right? And the fact that co-parenting is so high. I come from a really big family.

I don't have any children yet, but I seen the foster care system up close. I've seen what happens when families get separated and crumble and fall to pieces. And I'm just concerned that any ways that we further deteriorate a strong relationship between parents, we're harming the best interests of the child.

And I do believe collecting child support is part of a good thing and making sure children are provided financially is important. I'm just, I'm concerned with stepping in when we don't have to, when folks can opt into this at any point and do this at any point, which is currently the case. Right?

If my spouse is not paying child support and I need help and I need to garnish wages and I need to do things, I can opt into this program right now. Right?

Do you mind if I?

Yes, sorry.

So, yes, yes. Parents can take care of it on their own. And that's why we thought it was incredibly important to have an easy, an incredibly easy opt out in this Bill.

We think it's also really important that the default is an opt in because the situation you described where people are co parenting, we should not be involved in that. And we want to have great co parenting. Absolutely. For sure. We need to be involved when there is maybe an imbalance in the negotiating power.

And the opt out provides cover for those parents because they can say it happened by operation of law and so, it doesn't create interference in that relationship where you turned me in or you made me. Right? They get cover because it happens by operation of law.

That's why I think the opt out actually isn't the real thing, because the spouse will believe that this is the court's order, that, that this is the result of that hearing not realizing that this is a wholly separate thing, that they don't have to be a part, they will believe this is all this, this is the way this goes.

And I think your opt out rate is going to be nothing because it all, you know, people don't tend to buck what happens in the courtroom. And that's just my concerns is, is that, you know, I've seen really incredible co parenting situation.

I've also seen situations where the spouse, you know, in the case of people I love deeply, who have, you know, been unable to pay their child support but have a fantastic co-parenting relationship and have some, you know, relief until they land back on their feet and then maybe they get their apartment first and then they get back on and they find other ways and they take the kids and they figure out, you know, I think parents navigate life together in the best interest for their children.

I know there's some really hostile and toxic situations that are not always that way, but I think, I don't know that this helps that not be more frequent. And that's just my general concern. I am going to support it today, but just wanted to put that out there.

For what it's worth, I moved to Sacramento from Texas 10 years ago and where I worked for 17 years in the child support program there, and they had, they had a very—they had a local rule of the court in some of the counties that automatically opted in cases. And the experience there was that parents made thoughtful choices, and many parents did opt out.

It was easy, it was incredibly easy to opt out, just like this. But we did have much higher participation rates and the cases where families did need services were there. And we have a situation in California where unfortunately, lots of parents know that our services are available.

They don't think they're eligible and they don't understand that almost all the services are free. Right? We have tons of legal services that we provide. You know, the income withholding, the intercepts, the modifications. All those legal services are free except for this federal $35 annual fee that we have to charge, which I hate, but.

Right, but we have, right? So, we think the way it's structured is really, really important, that it's an easy opt out but it kind of makes it the default. So, people have the cover of law if they want to say, you know, look, this, this, this happened.

And, and enforcement is a natural part of the child supporter you got. The court ordered you to pay, so, there should be mechanisms in place to make sure that there's compliance.

Assemblymember Dixon.

When I first looked at this Bill, I thought this was pretty straightforward. Now, I need some tutorial information here. Okay, let me understand something. Just as our colleague from Los Angeles was just asking or explaining about court ordered custody. So, that is the money within the family that is paid to support the children.

That is not state money, is that correct? That's family money? All right. When does the state get involved in doing what in terms of child support? When, when we were talking about the cost of the state, what is the actual cost of the state?

With the unknown of more people opting in, is that going to be a taxpayer costs?

Do you mind if I? Okay, so the $35 fee is kind of a nominal fee that we're required to pay by the feds. Our program, you know, the attorneys that we have in our program and the child support workers and all the casework we have, it's primarily funded by a federal grant.

The federal grant pays two thirds of our program cost. One third is state funding. So, it's an incredibly good deal for the state, right, because.

So, the state—excuse me for interrupting—the state's role in this process is to just enforce the law. It's not to provide new funds. Except what? Yes. So, where are the new fund—what is the justification or what is the reason?

What does it cause to create the increased expenditure by the state of California for the people who aren't opting in and they don't have the funds, is that it? Or they're now opting in and so, they don't have the funds.

And so, if there's not that spousal relationship or parental relationship, then the state supplements or pays the child custody.

Yeah, this is a—so, child support. Child support is—child support is a payment from one parent to the other parent, right? And it is overwhelmingly a payment from a higher earning parent to a lower income family. Right? That's by its design; that's by its very nature. And that's why it's a very effective anti-poverty program, because by its nature, by the guidelines, by the entire structure of the program, it's a payment from a higher earning parent to a lower income parent.

But it's within the family?

Okay.

Yes.

Yes. And our involvement is only to provide enforcement of the court's order if people want it. So, the idea is if people don't need it, if people are co-parenting, if they don't, they, they, they opt out. And they were—if you don't mind, there was.

So, this is just for enforcement?

Yes. And there, there was a question.

What was your thought there? Let's find that out. I'm sorry, finish your sentence.

I was gonna say there was a question earlier about, you know, the court could order and, and under this section, under family code 4201, there is language in there that the court can order—the court can order the child support agency to represent the children.

In the entire time that I've been in the program, I have never seen that actually happen. I have never seen the court order that to happen. People have applied and people sometimes do apply, but there is also this void where people don't know services are available.

They think they're not eligible, or they don't understand that almost all the services are free, and so, they don't enroll.

So, this is really about service providing to people to make sure they're getting their child custody payments that the court has ordered.

Yes.

There's no new monies from—okay. All right. Yeah. Okay, thank you.

Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

So, you're also, you're not just an enforcement entity. You're a pass through. Right? So, let's be clear about that. You said you just do enforcement, but if people are opted into this program, as our colleague from Los Angeles said, payments will go through you, even if someone is paying and complying.

So, family code 4014, which we are not modifying, already requires families to either enroll in child support services or register their case with the state case registry. And payments go through the state case registry. So, payments are supposed to go through the state case registry, no matter what. Right? So, tthere's an accurate—there's an accurate record of what was paid.

So, whether we're providing services or not, payments are supposed to go through the state case registry. Now, compliance has been low and people have not complied. People have not done what they're required to under 4014 and either registered their case or enrolled in services.

So, a lot of them are off the books and we don't know, and then, that can create problems too, because then the parents will come to us 10 years later and there's a big argument about what was actually paid. Right? And so, we have to have hearings to figure that out. Right?

But technically, if the parents are following the law, all child support payments should go through the state case registry and be passed through, whether we're providing services or not.

I don't like government bureaucracy, so I feel like where cases are working, we should just let them take care of it, as our colleague said. So, I don't—I mean, that's part of why I'm struggling here, frankly. And I just want to also clarify that you keep saying easy opt out as set forth in the Bill.

The Bill doesn't set forth how the opt out works. And so, I know you are going to negotiate that, but I think it's critically important at this point that nothing in this legislation is clear that that will be easy, straightforward, transparent, and allow people to opt out.

So, I hope that that will become the case as this Bill moves forward if we continue to work with this opt in mechanism. But I think, yeah, I think that what you said about courts not ordering this is actually the problem. That's where I see the problem.

And I think that working with judicial counsel to get to where courts understand the benefit your organization provides for the families that need it and getting judges to get those families into the system feels like the actual thing we should be doing, rather than opting in every Californian.

Any other questions or comments? I want to thank the author for bringing the Bill forward. I know that, as mentioned, there are certain requirements, including the registry, that folks aren't necessarily doing, and I imagine that in those situations, they have some amicable agreement where they're paying and no one's complaining. And so, that's fine if that's working.

But the reality is that in a lot of separations, it's not amicable. And that, in many cases also doesn't necessarily equate to how much money one partner has or the other.

There can be a partner that has plenty of wealth and just because of the nature of the toxic nature of the separation, refuses to give a dollar, even if it's for their own children.

But that being said, LCSAs provide a service to help facilitate that offers other kinds of services to assist both of the partners, even after a separation and after a divorce, including if the person that's been ordered to pay is having problems or issues or falling behind, the LCSA can make adjustments and can offer services to help that individual get through a rough patch or help them to help facilitate make those payments.

Ultimately, these are court order payments that have to be paid. And there are services that people are not making themselves, that they're not availing themselves of, that are—that we're providing.

These are public services. Much of it is federal money. These services are available. What I do agree with is that the opt out, I mean having represented thousands of clients in courts with many forms that have to be signed and initialed, what have you, oftentimes opt outs, opt ins can be lost.

And I think a lot of us are thinking like, oh, you buy a house, you buy a car, all these forms, opt in, opt out. We're just going to initial everything and not even think about it, which can happen at times.

But I think in this situation, that's where the conversation with Western Center and with colleagues and with staff to make it very—to have much more clarity on what the opt out looks like, so it's crystal clear as the process is going on, when orders are being made, that it's not just one checklist and a checklist with 30 things that have to be checked off a box, but that there's a very clear conversation on the opt out.

If it requires a judge to go over the opt out, hey, so you know this court order is being made, you are going to be enrolled in this.

You have the opportunity to opt out at this moment, and you know, if they have counsel, the council wisely tell them to opt out if there's an amicable agreement and there's not an issue with the payments and so on. So, I think there's a reason why a lot of the focus has been on the opt out.

And I know that the author is already committed to continuing to work on what that opt out could look like and working with—and the opposition. I appreciate the opposition recognizing they came a little late with opposition.

So, we definitely want to give the author and the sponsors the opportunity to work through some of those issues to our satisfaction, as well as the satisfaction of the sponsors and the opposition to ensure that there's a meaningful opt out.

But I think overall what we're seeing is plenty of families that qualify for services that they're not getting and that is resulting in child support either not being paid or people struggling more so to pay it than they necessarily have to because they're not availing themselves of services that they are eligible for.

So, the underlying intention of the Bill I fully agree with, and I think we have clearly some work to do to ensure that folks aren't paying into it if they don't have to, and I think we can resolve that in the hearings ahead. And this will be going to Human Services Committee.

So, hopefully with the opposition coming in now, there's opportunities to have those—shut those conversations right away before it goes to the next Committee. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. And I recognize that there's still more work to be done and that the whole opting out is something that we definitely need to work on.

And just I think you all went through this when we filed for our election and there was that new forum that automatically says that your residency and whatnot is there. If you'd like to opt out, you've got to fill—or if you'd like to opt out, here's another form, and something that easy.

I had them explain it to me three more times, like, this is a new thing. Can you explain this to me again? I want to opt out of something that I'm automatically opted in. And so, I understand that. And so, we'll make sure that we work with opposition to make it so it's as easiest as possible.

You know, I understand also that there are so many different types of relationships. And you're right, right? I was a foster mom for several years and saw that right in front of my eyes. And the different types of families these children come from.

And some of them have parents that are able to work something out and that it's an amicable, you know, separation. But then there are some that are just absolutely horrible, absolutely insane, that you can't believe that they would use this opportunity to put the children in the middle and fault them for everything.

And that's where I think we're looking at, is there a few of those families that we really need to support them, especially when it comes with children. And that's why this is about child support. And it's not—you're absolutely right that this isn't going to end child poverty. Absolutely not.

But it's one tool in our belt, as legislators, that we can do to help be a part of that and fix that. And so, I respectfully ask for your aye vote in this. And as it moves over to Human Services, I can assure you that we'll work on this.

Thank you so much. We have a motion. So, motion. Is there a second? And a second. Thank you so much.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll place that bill on call. Thank you. The last measure we have is SJR 8 of Senator Arreguín. Senator, I'm sorry. I didn't see you sitting back there, so I apologize for that. Next time, feel free to jump up and down and throw something at me, whatever it takes.

It was fascinating. So if this bill comes to our House, I've learned a lot, and I have a witness, if they can please join.

Sure. Whenever you're ready.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members, for the opportunity to present Senate Joint Resolution 8 in support of renewing the immigration provisions of the Immigration Act of 1929.

The federal immigration registry was originally created in 1929 to provide a pathway to legal residency for individuals who've lived in the United States for an extended period. Congress has updated the registry several times in 1940, 1958, 1965, and most recently in 1986, setting the cutoff for eligibility at January 1, 1972.

And that date has not changed in nearly 40 years, making the provision unusable for current people in our country. Senate Joint Resolution 8 urges Congress to modernize the registry by establishing a rolling eligibility date so that residency of seven years or more would make somebody eligible for lawful permanent residency.

And this is being advanced through legislation in both the House and the Senate by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Senator Alex Padilla. This simple legislative fix will restore access to a longstanding legalization mechanism that has already existed in federal law for nearly a century.

I'll just say that in our state's discussion on immigration policy and immigration enforcement, there's been broad agreement between both sides of the aisle that we need to create a streamlined legal pathway to citizenship, and this registry bill will help ensure that.

To put this in context, more than 8 million undocumented immigrants nationwide would benefit from a modernized registry, and in California alone, we're home to 2.3 million undocumented residents. That means hundreds of thousands would become eligible for such relief. I don't need to speak to the benefits that providing legal status would provide for so many people.

In addition, 121 billion in wages and 83 billion in tax revenue would be generated from a modernized registry, according to the Center for American Progress. And these are people that have lived in our communities for many years. They're essential workers, they're caregivers, they're small-business owners, and parents of U.S. citizens.

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, updating the registry is the most direct and efficient way to provide status to long-term immigrants who are contributing to our country. And now more than ever, Congress must act.

Senate Joint Resolution 8, which the Senate has passed, reflects our values as a state committed to inclusion, dignity, and justice for all. With me to testify--it's good to see you; it's been a long time--is Renee Saucedo from the Northern California Coalition for Immigrant Rights. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Renee Saucedo, and I'm a community organizer for the Northern California Coalition for Just Immigration Reform. I am here today in support of adopting this resolution. People deserve to be able to adjust their status within a reasonable time of their arrival to the U.S. Currently, very few have a means to do this.

They are family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and valued community members. They pay state and federal taxes and contribute to Social Security and Medicare for which they are ineligible. They contribute to the workforce, often as essential workers who disproportionately suffer from exploitation, lack of adequate healthcare.

They are forced to endure the constant terror due to the current repression under the Trump Administration. They suffer severe emotional distress due to the constant fear of potentially being separated from their family members, including their children. I can't even imagine. It would be like torture to be forcibly separated from my son.

U.S. citizen children and youth expressed to us their fears that they won't find their parents at home when they get home from school. And the lack of opportunity to gain legal status and the right to travel causes suffering because people can't travel to see their elderly parents, even when their parents are very sick or have passed away.

The registry bill is overwhelmingly supported by California immigrants because it offers a reasonable path to citizenship and does not include sections which further criminalize and exploit hardworking families. California must protect our community safety from ICE and the Department of Homeland Security and must also push the federal government to pass a policy which brings communities out of the shadows. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of SJR 8? Oh. Hold on one moment. We'll put the microphone on.

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA, proud co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California, proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Socorro Diaz, Sonoma County Sanctuary Coalition. I support.

Thank you.

Anastasia Cruz, ALMAS Libres/Raizes Collective, Sonoma County, Sonoma.

Thank you.

Eva Jimenez, on behalf of the California Dream Network, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SJR 8? All right. We'll bring it back to committee. You have a motion to-- and we have a second. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Well, I want to thank you for bringing this forward.

The last time, as mentioned, as well as mentioned in the analysis that the date was moved-- was in 1986 is when it was-- the last time that the action was taken. Broad action was taken in regards to immigration, of course, during the Reagan Administration. In fact, Reagan-- and I'll quote Reagan. He said, I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back, they may have entered illegally.

I think that's the kind of sentiment we have to get back to as a nation in a bipartisan manner to recognize the valuable contributions of immigrants, but at the very least, to at least open up this registry again so folks can at least have some sense that they're being recognized as contributing members of our community.

And at some point, I know-- and I know you may reference the longtime San Jose Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, has been working on this for a very long time, that we-- at some point, we can get to comprehensive immigration reform, and then we'll actually have a registry of individuals that can go through their process in a legal manner. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as you had said, last time this was updated in 1986, I was two years old, and the date was established in 1972. There are generations of people who have come to this country who are contributing to our economy, who are critical parts of our communities who have not been able to take advantage of the relief provided in the act, and so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion's to be adopted to the floor. [Roll call].

All right, we'll place that on call. Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you. And this time, I'll ask all Judiciary Committee Members to return to Committee. We have a couple of measures on call and we have some add ons as well. All right, we'll go ahead and consent. Yeah, why don't we do that?

We'll do the add ons. I think she's the only one. So we'll go ahead on the consent calendar.

Consent. Papan.

Consent.

Consent.

Papan aye.

Right. And then on item 1, for add ons, AB 1657. Rogers.

Papan?

Papan. Aye.

Aye.

Item 2, AB 1660. Schiavo. For add ons.

Papan.

Aye.

Papan. Aye.

Okay, and then we'll go ahead and move the call on item three. SJR8 are again.

Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Harabedean. Papan?

Aye.

Papan Aye. Stephanie Zbur.

Okay, we'll place that back on call. And then item five, AB 1643. Win.

Bauer-Kahan. Harabedian. Papan.

Aye.

Papan. Aye. Stefani. Stefani. Aye on 1643. Zbur.

Okay, so that Bill is out. We'll hold it open for add ons. And I think the summer happens. Should be all done now. You just put it on the windmill.

And then let's do SGR8.

And then item 3. SGR8. Ragin, move the call.

Bauer-kahan. Bryan Harabedian. Stefani. Stefani Aye. Zbur.

Okay, we'll place that back on call. And I think Assembly Member Stefani is done.

Am I?

Yep. zero, great.

Thank you.

Okay, well, we'll lift the call on item three, SJR8.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Place that back on call. And then for an add on. On item five, AB 1643 Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you.

All right. So thank you, sir. Sure. Yeah. I think we only have a couple items for you. We'll move the call on item three. SJR8. Adean Bar.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. And then we have AB 1643 Nguyen .[Roll Call]All right, you're all good. Aye. [Roll Call] And then add on for item five. AB 1643 Nguyen. [Roll Call] All right, thank you. Adjourned.