California Assembly Bill AB2764

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/26
• Refer: 3/16/26
• Report Pass: 4/23/26
• Engrossed: 5/4/26
• Refer: 5/5/26
• Refer: 5/13/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Refer: 5/14/26
• Report Pass: 6/1/26
• Refer: 6/1/26
• Report Pass: 6/10/26
• Refer: 6/10/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 11403 Sections 366.31, 388, 388.1, 391, 727.2, 11363, 11386, 11403, 11405, 16120, and 16501.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to foster care.

Summary

AB 2764 would amend California’s foster care law to ensure that nonminor dependents in extended foster care cannot be denied or removed from benefits for failing to meet education or employment participation rules that are stricter than the standards already set in existing law. Under current law, youth may remain eligible for extended foster care up to age 21 if they are completing secondary education, enrolled in postsecondary or vocational education, participating in an employment-related program, working at least 80 hours per month, or unable to do those activities because of a medical condition. This bill adds a clear prohibition against counties, courts, or foster care providers imposing more demanding participation requirements as a condition of continued eligibility. The bill is focused on Section 11403 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and would reinforce the eligibility rules for extended foster care, including AFDC-FC, CalWORKs, Kin-GAP, and adoption assistance-related benefits where applicable. It preserves the existing framework for six-month case plan certification, collaborative planning between youth and child welfare agencies, and due process protections before involuntary termination of aid. The measure does not create a new program; instead, it narrows how existing extended foster care rules may be applied. In practical terms, AB 2764 would affect county child welfare and probation departments, tribal entities, courts, licensed foster care providers, and nonminor dependents ages 18 to 21. It would limit local discretion to impose additional participation standards beyond state law, which could make continued foster care eligibility more predictable for youth transitioning to adulthood. Because the bill is framed as a clarification of eligibility standards rather than a new spending program, the digest indicates no appropriation and no fiscal committee referral. The general sentiment reflected in the bill’s progress is strongly supportive. It passed the Assembly committee stage unanimously and later passed Assembly Third Reading with 68 votes to 0, suggesting broad bipartisan agreement. The absence of recorded committee testimony in the provided materials limits insight into detailed stakeholder arguments, but the vote history indicates little visible opposition. The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, is the bill’s restriction on counties or other administering entities from requiring more than the state’s baseline education or work participation standards. Supporters would likely view this as protecting foster youth from inconsistent or overly burdensome local rules, while any potential critics would be concerned about reduced local flexibility in administering extended foster care eligibility. No direct opposition is reflected in the available vote record.

Impact

AB 2764 would amend Welfare and Institutions Code Section 11403 to bar denial or termination of extended foster care benefits based on education or employment participation requirements that exceed the existing statutory criteria. The bill would therefore constrain county welfare agencies, probation departments, courts, licensed foster care providers, and tribal entities from imposing stricter eligibility conditions on nonminor dependents. It would leave the underlying extended foster care structure intact while strengthening statewide uniformity in how eligibility is determined and maintained.

Sentiment

The available legislative history shows a highly favorable reception. The bill received a 5-0 do pass vote in committee and later passed Assembly Third Reading 68-0, indicating unanimous support among voting members at those stages. With no committee transcript provided, there is no recorded debate in the materials, but the vote pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward protection for foster youth rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

The only notable policy tension is between protecting nonminor dependents from overly strict eligibility rules and preserving local administrative discretion. The bill would prevent counties, courts, and providers from requiring participation standards beyond what state law already allows, which supporters would likely characterize as necessary to avoid arbitrary barriers to extended foster care. Any opposition would likely come from those favoring more flexibility for local agencies to set or enforce higher engagement expectations, but no explicit opposition is reflected in the provided record.