Bryan, with principal coauthor Solache, advances a measure to broaden the duty to notify and accommodate the physical presence of incarcerated parents in a wider array of dependency proceedings, while permitting participation by videoconference or teleconference when in-person attendance is waived or not feasible. The bill also extends attendance rights to nonminor dependents in juvenile court contexts, expanding the scope of who may be present and represented in these proceedings.
The proposal expands the set of hearings for which incarcerated parents must receive notice and have the opportunity to be physically present, including proceedings related to the termination of parental rights, the adjudication of a child as a dependent, and related matters involving a prisoner’s family. Service of notice would continue under existing Family Code and Welfare and Institutions Code mechanisms, and a court shall not adjudicate these matters without the prisoner’s physical presence or a properly cited waiver unless an affidavit from an institutional official indicates the prisoner does not intend to appear. If a waiver exists or in cases where in-person attendance is not feasible, the prisoner’s participation may occur by videoconference, with teleconferencing as a substitute if videoconferencing is unavailable; in all cases, in-person attendance remains possible and is not replaced by remote participation. The bill preserves a process to temporarily remove the prisoner from custody to attend proceedings and requires advance notice to the warden, with the court and sheriff carrying out the appearance and return, while the prisoner remains in constructive custody during these arrangements. It also retains a death-penalty exception and clarifies that the option for remote participation does not nullify in-person visits.
Implementation would require expanded duties for local jail officials to provide notice and facilitate attendance, including coordinating videoconference or teleconference participation; these duties are recognized as a state-mandated local program, with potential local costs that may be reimbursed if the state mandates them. In parallel, the bill extends the right to attend and participate at hearings to nonminor dependents, ensuring they may be represented by counsel of their choice, addressed in court, and provided with continuances only to the extent necessary to provide notice and secure attendance. A reimbursement framework is provided if the Commission on State Mandates determines state-mandated costs exist, aligning with existing procedures for local government cost recovery.
Together, the changes place greater emphasis on the involvement of incarcerated parents and nonminor dependents in dependency-related decisions by expanding who must be notified, how participation can occur, and the procedural protections surrounding attendance. The measure preserves due process elements—notice, counsel, and opportunities to address the court—while detailing the operational and fiscal responsibilities placed on courts, sheriffs, and county agencies to implement these participation rights.
![]() Isaac BryanD Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
![]() Jose SolacheD Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted |
Email the authors or create an email template to send to all relevant legislators.
Bryan, with principal coauthor Solache, advances a measure to broaden the duty to notify and accommodate the physical presence of incarcerated parents in a wider array of dependency proceedings, while permitting participation by videoconference or teleconference when in-person attendance is waived or not feasible. The bill also extends attendance rights to nonminor dependents in juvenile court contexts, expanding the scope of who may be present and represented in these proceedings.
The proposal expands the set of hearings for which incarcerated parents must receive notice and have the opportunity to be physically present, including proceedings related to the termination of parental rights, the adjudication of a child as a dependent, and related matters involving a prisoner’s family. Service of notice would continue under existing Family Code and Welfare and Institutions Code mechanisms, and a court shall not adjudicate these matters without the prisoner’s physical presence or a properly cited waiver unless an affidavit from an institutional official indicates the prisoner does not intend to appear. If a waiver exists or in cases where in-person attendance is not feasible, the prisoner’s participation may occur by videoconference, with teleconferencing as a substitute if videoconferencing is unavailable; in all cases, in-person attendance remains possible and is not replaced by remote participation. The bill preserves a process to temporarily remove the prisoner from custody to attend proceedings and requires advance notice to the warden, with the court and sheriff carrying out the appearance and return, while the prisoner remains in constructive custody during these arrangements. It also retains a death-penalty exception and clarifies that the option for remote participation does not nullify in-person visits.
Implementation would require expanded duties for local jail officials to provide notice and facilitate attendance, including coordinating videoconference or teleconference participation; these duties are recognized as a state-mandated local program, with potential local costs that may be reimbursed if the state mandates them. In parallel, the bill extends the right to attend and participate at hearings to nonminor dependents, ensuring they may be represented by counsel of their choice, addressed in court, and provided with continuances only to the extent necessary to provide notice and secure attendance. A reimbursement framework is provided if the Commission on State Mandates determines state-mandated costs exist, aligning with existing procedures for local government cost recovery.
Together, the changes place greater emphasis on the involvement of incarcerated parents and nonminor dependents in dependency-related decisions by expanding who must be notified, how participation can occur, and the procedural protections surrounding attendance. The measure preserves due process elements—notice, counsel, and opportunities to address the court—while detailing the operational and fiscal responsibilities placed on courts, sheriffs, and county agencies to implement these participation rights.
Ayes | Noes | NVR | Total | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
39 | 0 | 1 | 40 | PASS |
![]() Isaac BryanD Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted | |
![]() Jose SolacheD Assemblymember | Bill Author | Not Contacted |