An act to add Section 16516.7 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.
AB 2684 would add a new section to the Welfare and Institutions Code governing monthly visitation for nonminor dependents who are placed out of state. The bill allows county social workers or probation officers to conduct those monthly visits virtually, but only if the nonminor dependent gives informed consent and the arrangement is documented in the case plan. Virtual visits must include a private conversation between the youth and the caseworker, and the bill limits disclosure of that conversation to certain safety- or consent-based circumstances.
The bill also preserves the nonminor dependent’s ability to request an in-person visit, requires an in-person visit at least quarterly, and allows the caseworker to convert a virtual visit to an in-person visit if there are safety or well-being concerns. It excludes nonminor dependents placed in out-of-state residential facilities under the Family Code and states that the new rules apply only to the extent permitted by federal law and should not reduce required in-residence visits for federal compliance purposes. In addition, the bill directs the State Department of Social Services to convene a working group by July 1, 2027, to develop guidelines for county placing agencies and attorneys, and to convene stakeholders to develop best practices and training for supporting the healthy adult development of nonminor dependents.
In practical terms, the bill would create new duties for county welfare departments, county probation departments, and their social workers or probation officers, making it a state-mandated local program. It also includes reimbursement language for any mandated costs that the Commission on State Mandates determines are reimbursable under existing procedures. The measure is framed as a visitation and casework modernization bill, with an emphasis on maintaining youth privacy, safety, and continuity of contact for young adults living outside California.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly favorable. The bill advanced with unanimous committee support in the votes provided, including a 7-0 vote and a 12-0 vote, and the last action recommended it for the consent calendar. That pattern suggests broad agreement that the bill is a relatively noncontroversial update to foster care visitation rules for out-of-state placements.
The main points of potential contention are fiscal and administrative rather than policy-based. Counties may be concerned about the added workload, documentation requirements, and the need to arrange quarterly in-person visits, while the state may need to address reimbursement if the new duties are deemed mandated costs. There may also be implementation questions around federal compliance, informed consent, privacy during virtual visits, and how to handle technical failures or safety concerns when deciding whether a visit should remain virtual or become in person.
AB 2684 would add Section 16516.7 to the Welfare and Institutions Code and expand the visitation framework for nonminor dependents placed out of state. It would require county social workers and probation officers to offer virtual monthly visits under specified conditions, require documentation and privacy protections, and preserve the right to in-person contact at the youth’s request or when safety concerns arise. The bill would also require quarterly in-person visits and direct the Department of Social Services to develop guidelines, stakeholder-informed best practices, and training for county agencies. Because it imposes new duties on local agencies, it is identified as a state-mandated local program and may trigger reimbursement obligations under the Commission on State Mandates process.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan or at least cross-committee support, with unanimous votes in the committee actions provided and a recommendation for the consent calendar. The absence of recorded opposition in the available history suggests the measure is viewed as a practical, youth-centered update to existing visitation rules rather than a controversial policy shift. Overall sentiment is positive, with support focused on improving access, continuity, and privacy for nonminor dependents living out of state.
The most notable concerns are operational and fiscal. County social services and probation departments may face added responsibilities for documenting consent, maintaining confidential virtual visits, arranging backup attempts after technical failures, and ensuring quarterly in-person contact. There is also a potential reimbursement issue because the bill creates a state-mandated local program, meaning counties may seek state funding if costs are found reimbursable. Substantively, the bill’s safeguards around informed consent, privacy, and the ability to switch from virtual to in-person visits reflect an effort to address concerns about youth safety, federal compliance, and whether virtual contact is appropriate in every case.