An act to amend Section 1062.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to child welfare nongovernmental organizations.
Summary
AB 2333 extends the sunset date for a narrow set of civil procedure rules governing foster family agencies (FFAs) and noncustodial adoption agencies that contract with public entities to provide foster youth services. Under existing law, these provisions establish that FFAs may be liable for their own negligence, but not for harm caused by the public entity, and that each party must bear its own insurance and defense costs for its own acts and omissions. The bill does not change those substantive liability rules; it simply moves the repeal date of the chapter from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2030.
In practical terms, the bill keeps in place for a longer period the statutory framework that limits how liability and indemnification are allocated between child welfare nongovernmental organizations and public agencies. It preserves the rule that certain contractual indemnification provisions are void and unenforceable, and it continues the prohibition on courts waiving or suspending these protections until the new sunset date. Because the measure is a sunset extension, it is a continuation of existing policy rather than a new regulatory program.
Impact
AB 2333 amends Section 1062.34 of the Code of Civil Procedure to extend the life of the chapter governing liability and indemnification for foster family agencies and noncustodial adoption agencies contracting with public entities. The bill affects the legal relationship between these child welfare providers and the public agencies they serve by preserving the current allocation of responsibility for negligence, insurance, defense costs, and contract indemnity through January 1, 2030 instead of January 1, 2027. It does not create a state reimbursement mandate or appropriations impact, and it is identified as having no fiscal committee or local program impact.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little controversy. The bill passed committee 6-0 and later passed the Assembly 73-0 on the consent calendar, indicating that members generally viewed the measure as a routine extension of an existing statutory framework. The absence of committee transcript debate also suggests the bill was treated as a technical or noncontroversial sunset extension.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive opposition in the provided materials. The only likely point of policy interest is the extension itself: supporters appear to favor preserving liability protections and contract rules for FFAs and public entities, while any potential concern would be from parties who might prefer the underlying provisions to expire on the earlier date. However, no specific objections, amendments, or competing viewpoints are reflected in the votes or transcripts provided.