Adoption.

Senator Menjivar leads a measure that frame-s the policy around adoption as a clarifying and jurisdictional initiative: it would require final adoption orders to explicitly name both the adoptive parent(s) and any existing parent who will retain rights after the finalization, and it would expand California courts’ reach for certain California-born minors in adoption cases where a freeing-from-custody step is not required or is being pursued in-state.

To operationalize these aims, the bill tightens the independent adoption investigation process. Investigations would proceed within 180 days after the department or delegated county agency receives half of the required fee, with the remaining balance due before the report and recommendation are submitted. If petitioners have a valid preplacement evaluation or a valid private home study and no new information emerges, reinvestigation may be avoided, provided all background clearances are completed. If serious questions arise about suitability, care, or consent, the report is filed immediately. For petitioners from outside California, an updated home study conducted in the petitioner’s state will be reviewed and endorsed if its standards are substantially commensurate with California’s; if not, petitioners must supply additional information to complete the investigation.

The bill additionally expands jurisdiction for California-based adoptions involving California-born minors when a freeing-from-custody action is unnecessary to make the minor available for adoption, or when such a proceeding is brought in-state. It preserves connections to interjurisdictional arrangements like the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and reinforces coordination when another state has jurisdiction. The measure also clarifies that when custody orders pertain to Indian children, tribal courts remain part of the framework.

Implementation would entail updates to court forms, petition processes, and agency workflows to reflect the new ordering requirement, the revised investigation timeline, and the new jurisdictional basis. The proposal indicates a fiscal analysis will be conducted, signaling attention to potential changes in agency workload and related costs, while maintaining reliance on existing court and county adoption agency structures to enforce the provisions. Stakeholders—prospective adoptive parents, birth or existing parents who will retain rights, counties, courts, and out-of-state petitioners—would be affected through clearer post-adoption rights documentation, structured timelines, and additional documentation requirements where out-of-state studies are not substantially commensurate with California standards.