Transcript Highlights:

• Adrienne Shilton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Adrienne Shelton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Adrienne Shelton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.
• Adrienne Shelton on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Services in support.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My office fields multiple calls each day from families desperately seeking in-home support for their
• Let's support our caregivers and the families and the communities who depend on them.
• coordination supports through more than 50 documented interactions with the family.
• These services included insurance assistance, medical procedure explanations, caregiver support, and
• In fact, according to a recent AARP report supporting this piece of legislation, about 61% of family

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing focused on two broad sets of issues: home- and community-based care, and school-based Medicaid reimbursement. In the morning session, legislators and advocates testified on bills affecting children and disabled enrollees, including proposals to clarify rate-setting for home health and home care services (H. 767/S. 870), allow family members and spouses to be paid caregivers under MassHealth (H. 1394/S. 886 and related bills), extend MassHealth coverage for applied behavior analysis and other therapies beyond age 21 for adults with autism and developmental disabilities (H. 1351/S. 871), and protect medically fragile children by improving access to continuous skilled nursing. In the later portion of the hearing, testimony shifted to a bill to improve MassHealth reimbursement for schools (S. 862), with speakers describing the school mental health crisis and the need to reinvest Medicaid funds directly into school health services. Witnesses on the home care rate-setting bill said current reimbursement methods are opaque and outdated, contributing to workforce shortages, unfilled shifts, long waitlists, and patients remaining in hospitals longer than necessary. Home care providers and trade groups argued the bill would not set rates directly but would require more transparent methodology and fuller consideration of real costs such as wages, benefits, taxes, training, and technology. On caregiver bills, many family members and provider organizations described the financial and emotional strain of caring for disabled or medically fragile relatives, especially when parents, spouses, or guardians are barred from being paid caregivers. They argued the bills would recognize existing unpaid care, help families remain at home, and reduce reliance on more expensive institutional care. Advocates for adult ABA coverage said services remain medically necessary after age 21 and that ending coverage at that age creates an inequitable “cliff” for MassHealth members compared with those with private insurance. For the PACE/community care bill, elder law attorneys and PACE advocates said current MassHealth income rules force some older adults with modestly higher incomes to spend down to $542 per month, making community living unrealistic and pushing people toward nursing homes. They supported changing the eligibility structure to a premium-based approach that would allow more people to remain in the community. On the school Medicaid bill, advocates said schools are providing effective, preventive mental health care, but reimbursement currently flows to municipalities rather than directly back to school health budgets, limiting districts’ ability to hire and retain staff. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee heard testimony and several witnesses requested favorable reports on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adrienne Shilton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Julia Hannigan, policy director with Dependency Legal Services, in support.
• By pairing direct services with whole-family support, food, transportation, and child care, we've cut
• Adrienne Shelton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Adrienne Schulton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Summary: The committee heard several child welfare, food assistance, child care, and developmental services bills. AB 308 would require a statewide evaluation of regional center safety training and crisis-response services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities; supporters said it would help reduce reliance on law enforcement and improve de-escalation and emergency preparedness. AB 1049 would remove sponsor deeming from the California Food Assistance Program, with supporters from food banks and legal aid arguing the rule creates confusion, chilling effects, and wrongful denials, while one member raised concerns about accountability and fraud. AB 1201 would narrow when a parent’s prior violent felony can bar reunification services, limiting the bypass to offenses involving a child or a child’s other parent/guardian; county and advocacy witnesses said the bill preserves judicial discretion and avoids automatic denials, though a member expressed concern about child safety in violent or criminal environments. AB 2379 would require family child care providers to be notified of constitutional rights and receive multilingual training regarding immigration enforcement; it drew broad support and no opposition. AB 2429 would make ACEs screening optional and reduce required classroom observations in the early childhood mental health consultation program, with supporters saying it would reduce administrative burdens and expand participation. AB 1755 would eliminate CalWORKs’ 100-hour monthly work penalty for two-parent families, and supporters said it would reduce poverty and administrative burden without changing income eligibility. AB 1981, presented later, would advance “true cost of care” child care rate reform, with providers describing the current reimbursement system as unsustainable. AB 2478 would create a streamlined kinship family approval pathway for foster care placements with relatives and other kin, and AB 1969 and AB 1996 would create statewide structures to coordinate cradle-to-career services and reduce child poverty, respectively; both were presented as data-driven, place-based efforts to align services and set measurable reduction goals. Most bills received strong support from county agencies, advocacy organizations, and service providers, with little or no opposition testimony. Members generally praised the goals of the measures but asked questions about implementation, accountability, and child safety in the reunification and benefits bills. The committee took roll calls on the bills it heard, and the votes shown in the transcript were largely unanimous or near-unanimous, with several measures held on call after passing committee votes. AB 1049 was voted out 2-1, AB 1201 and AB 2379 were each voted out 3-0, AB 2429 and AB 1755 were voted out 2-0, and AB 2478, AB 1969, and AB 1996 were each voted out 2-0; the chair repeatedly noted that some bills would remain on call pending absent members. AB 1981 drew extensive support testimony from child care providers and allies, but the committee did not take a final vote in the portion of the transcript provided because no motion was available at that moment.

Transcript Highlights:

• We recognize that families are best served in the community with supports and services, and with placement
• This bill would fund service providers and Family Supportive Housing to care... moves the A1 Amendment
• This bill would fund service providers and Family Supportive Housing to care...
• This bill would fund service providers and Family Supportive Housing to care...
• This bill would fund service providers and Family Supportive Housing to care... ...Family Supportive

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• service hours to better Support families like mine.
• , by my face by families who rely on vital support.
• Supporting direct support workers means supporting those children and their families.
• and services to families across the state.
• But right now, families need supports and services now. DSPs need increases now.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on several budget requests tied to health and human services. Louisiana Children’s Advocacy Centers asked for continued support and a supplemental appropriation of $1.173 million for infrastructure and standardization, explaining that the money would expand use of the Guardify digital evidence system, improve chain of custody, and reduce reliance on DVDs. Baton Rouge and statewide CAC leaders said prior funding helped eliminate a therapy wait list and speed services for abused children. Members asked detailed questions about the digital system, MDT coordination, and how the request related to SB 237, which would strengthen multidisciplinary review of child abuse cases. The Alzheimer’s Association sought $824,000 to sustain the dementia care specialist program, saying it helps families navigate services, keep loved ones at home longer, and reduce Medicaid costs. AARP and the Live at Home Coalition also testified for 750 additional Community Choice waiver slots at a state cost of $3.3 million, arguing that home- and community-based care is cheaper than nursing homes and that the current wait list is more than 11,000 people. Legislators discussed the size of the need, the state’s long-term care spending mix, and whether more support should go to family caregivers and community-based options. Testimony also focused on disability support services, substance use treatment, and developmental disability provider rates. A parent and direct support worker described the Children’s Choice waiver’s 20-hour cap and low pay, saying it makes it hard to retain caregivers and meet the needs of medically fragile children. Odyssey House and O’Brien House asked for higher Medicaid reimbursement rates under ASAM 4, warned that removal of room-and-board payments and weak Medicaid eligibility pathways are reducing access, and called for more oversight of sober living homes; members questioned outcomes data, length of stay, and links to homelessness. Finally, the Arc of Louisiana said the LDH rate study confirmed underfunding and supported a $53.6 million increase in state general funds, with local ARC leaders describing the services they provide and the need for higher direct support professional wages.

Transcript Highlights:

• services to address... ...prevention and mental health promotion, treatment, and recovery support services
• strengths of our current structure to better support individuals and their families.
• Would you say that our family support centers are a great asset to help coordinate these services for
• I had a support system around me, and it was through DCYF and the FAR services.
• for at-risk families, and therefore the other families that do not need the services are often overlooked

Summary: The committee began with a work session on recommendations from the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Work Group. Tisha Kirshbaum of the Health Care Authority described the Washington Thriving Strategic Plan, a prenatal-to-25 system-of-care framework meant to reduce fragmentation, improve coordination across multiple state agencies, and expand early, community-based behavioral health supports. Members asked about duplication among agencies, simplification of the system, and upstream services such as community health workers, school-based supports, and crisis access. The committee then heard House Bill 2429, which would direct the governor and state agencies to align with the Washington Thriving plan, create an executive coordination officer and leadership council, extend the work group, and require broader alignment by state, tribal, local, and nonprofit entities. The bill received strong support from the governor’s office, the Health Care Authority, parents, youth, providers, and advocates, while a few testifiers raised concerns about government overreach, cost, or the need to address non-psychiatric causes of distress. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2364, which renames and expands the Legislative Executive Work First Poverty Reduction Oversight Task Force into the Legislative Executive Economic Justice and Well-Being Task Force and updates the related advisory council to align with the state’s 10-year plan to dismantle poverty. Staff and the prime sponsor said the bill reflects the evolution of the poverty-reduction effort and adds agencies such as the Department of Revenue, Health Care Authority, and Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board. Testimony from DSHS and advocates was uniformly supportive, emphasizing bipartisan collaboration and the need to update statute to match current work. Next, the committee heard House Bill 2171 on supporting foster youth. The bill would create an endangered foster youth alert system, require county rapid-response protocols, establish a foster youth empowerment account, create an oversight board through the Ombuds office, and expand training for foster parents and child welfare workers. The prime sponsor and several advocates described the bill as a response to lived experience and a way to improve accountability and long-term support. DCYF said it supports the intent but raised legal and cost concerns, and some youth advocates warned that public alerts could increase risk or trauma for youth who run away from unsafe placements. The hearing then moved to House Bill 2314, which would create a pilot allowing certain community-based clients with developmental disabilities to receive dental care at residential habilitation centers. Supporters said the bill would use existing dental capacity to address severe access gaps and long waits in the community, while opponents from disability advocacy groups argued it would pull people back into institutional settings instead of building community-based dental capacity. Testimony on the bill was mixed, and no final committee action was taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• to secure appropriate services and supports.
• Families to secure appropriate services and supports.
• individualized services and supports.
• Behind every service, there is a person, a family, and a future that depends on this support.
• Let me tell you where the real disparities exist: in the families who go years without services and support

Summary: The hearing focused on three developmental services proposals: standardizing regional center intake eligibility assessments, modernizing the strengths-and-needs evaluation used in individual program planning, and combining the Community Placement Plan and Community Resource Development Plan. The LAO and DDS said the first two proposals are intended to improve statewide consistency, equity, transparency, and data quality, while preserving the person-centered IPP process and requiring further legislative approval before implementation. DDS emphasized that current practices vary widely by regional center, that the CEDER is outdated and inconsistently used, and that better assessment data could improve planning and resource development. Advocates and regional center representatives were split: some supported updating or replacing the CEDER and developing a more reliable tool, while others urged caution, more community co-design, and clearer safeguards against unintended service reductions or loss of trust. The committee also discussed the proposal to set 24-month transition timelines for people at Porterville Developmental Center and Canyon Springs, with a 12-month provisional placement and right of return if community placement fails. DDS argued the time limits would create urgency, reduce long stays in restrictive settings, and better align with the Lanterman Act and Olmstead principles. Supporters, including Disability Rights California, the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, and the Public Defenders Association, said the proposal could reduce unnecessary institutionalization if paired with individualized transition planning, stronger mental health supports, public reporting, and notice to counsel. They also noted the high cost of institutional care and said the amendments made since May improved the proposal. Opponents, including a Napa County district attorney and some regional center stakeholders, argued that a fixed 24-month cap could be too rigid for people with the most complex needs and could create public safety risks if community supports are not ready. They stressed that current court review processes already allow case-by-case extensions and that some residents have serious criminal histories or behavioral challenges. Several speakers urged the Legislature to ensure any transition deadlines are matched with adequate community capacity, clear implementation plans, and a meaningful safety net. No votes were taken in the hearing, and the chair said the committee would continue reviewing the proposals and public input before any next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, and...
• The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, including
• Fewer than one million families statewide are utilizing child support services.
• Fewer than one million families statewide are utilizing child support services.
• Adrienne Shilton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And to be able to give them the type of support they need to maintain support within their family.
• Supportive Services system, or IHSS program.
• long-term services and support system.
• We rely on Medi-Cal, In-Home Supportive Services, and regional center services to survive.
• receive more funding, who is going to support families like mine?

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services heard testimony on Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and related budget and trailer bill proposals, with a major focus on the impacts of H.R. 1 on people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). DDS and the Department of Social Services (DSS) said H.R. 1 could affect Medi-Cal and CalFresh access, but that people with disabilities and caregivers are exempt from the work requirements; the administration is working on data matching and automation through the statewide eligibility system to identify exemptions, with June 1, 2026 as the implementation date for CalFresh changes. Witnesses and advocates warned that any loss of Medi-Cal could create fiscal pressure on regional centers and households, while public commenters described the real-life consequences of losing services. Committee members repeatedly expressed concern about cost shifts to counties and asked for harm-mitigation strategies before the May Revision. The committee also reviewed the governor’s IHSS-related proposals. DSS said the budget would set a baseline for authorized hours, align IHSS disenrollment/reinstatement with Medi-Cal eligibility processes, and eliminate the IHSS backup provider system, while emphasizing that individual service hours would still be based on assessed need. DDS said if a person loses IHSS or Medi-Cal, regional centers may have to step in as payer of last resort for some services, potentially at higher state cost. Members and the Legislative Analyst’s Office questioned whether counties could absorb the proposed shifts without reducing services, and asked for more detail on implementation, data quality controls, and how regional centers could help families navigate disruptions. A separate trailer bill on DDS rate reform and the Quality Incentive Program drew mixed reactions. DDS proposed extending a contract exemption and delaying final rate reform regulations to 2030, saying the changes are budget-neutral and needed for implementation. DDS reported that about 81% of providers had completed the current Quality Incentive Program requirements, but providers and advocates argued the 90-10 structure can function like a penalty and may destabilize services if providers lose 10% of funding. Committee members asked for clearer assistance to providers, possible flexibility for good-faith efforts, and a redlined version of the language before the May Revision. The committee also heard DDS’s proposed trailer bill on regional center governance and provider capacity. DDS said the language would consolidate regional center contracts and performance measures, strengthen board training and oversight, require consumer advisory committees, expand independent legal support, raise the threshold for board approval of contracts, and remove barriers such as physical-office requirements and duplicate vendorization. DDS said the goal is to improve accountability and efficiency while preserving person-centered services, and members indicated they wanted further refinement and stakeholder input before moving forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• 40 caseload ratio, and coordinated family support services can increase opportunities to identify specific
• Over half of the families we support are receiving respite services.
• They support just over 900 families.
• I would add family supports.
• Today we're here to let you know that families who need regional center services continue to support

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Human Services held a hearing on developmental services, rehabilitation, and related supports, with no votes taken. The first major topic was the Master Plan for Developmental Services. Administration officials described a year-long, community-driven process that included a steering committee, work groups, and statewide engagement sessions, and said the final draft would be released that Friday with about 170 recommendations. The Department of Developmental Services said the plan would inform future work, but did not offer a detailed implementation roadmap. The LAO said the plan contains significant policy and budget implications, may require statutory changes, and needs further analysis to turn recommendations into actionable proposals. Advocates and regional center representatives urged the Legislature and administration to avoid letting the plan sit on a shelf, called for prioritization and ongoing stakeholder oversight, and emphasized the need to address equity, workforce, service coordination, and cross-system collaboration. The chair said he wanted to work with the LAO on trailer bill language and future reporting to create a clearer path forward. The second topic was the Office of Employment First and competitive integrated employment. Administration witnesses said California has ended subminimum wage under SB 639, but that moving people into competitive integrated employment remains a major priority. They described existing efforts such as DDS’s coordinated career pathways pilot, paid internships, job development services, benefits counseling, and DOR’s career counseling and referral services, along with pilot projects in San Diego and Orange County. The State Council on Developmental Disabilities and advocates argued that employment outcomes have remained stuck at roughly 15% and that a dedicated Employment First Office is needed to coordinate across agencies, align goals, and improve outcomes. The LAO recommended regular legislative oversight on people transitioning out of subminimum wage and asked for technical assistance on coordinated career pathways. The chair criticized the administration’s decision to effectively eliminate funding for the office, requested a detailed implementation timeline and quarterly transition reports, and said the committee would continue pressing for the office to be implemented. The final issue was respite services, utilization trends, and access. DDS reported that in-home respite use and spending have risen sharply over several years, with about 150,000 people using respite in 2023-24 and expenditures reaching about $1 billion. Officials said access depends on families knowing the service exists, service coordinators identifying need, and having enough providers, especially in rural and linguistically diverse communities. The San Diego Regional Center said utilization generally mirrors statewide trends, but access is stronger in some areas, such as Imperial County, where families often prefer family-directed or agency-supported models that allow them to hire trusted workers. Committee members emphasized the importance of respite for family health and caregiver well-being, asked whether service coordinators are asking practical questions about sleep and stress, and discussed the need for better identification of complex behavioral and medical needs. DDS said a standardized family support tool and updated IPP process are intended to improve consistency, transparency, and person-centered assessment for respite and related services.

Transcript Highlights:

• The child support program also provides families with access to a broad range of services, and...
• Fewer than one million families statewide are using child support services.
• Fewer than one million families statewide are utilizing child support services.
• Adrienne Shilton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.
• Adrienne Shilton, representing the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Summary: The committee heard a series of child and family services bills, with testimony from authors, county officials, advocates, and members of the public. AB 2083 would authorize a regional child care special district for Marina Valley and Paris; there was no public opposition, but a vice chair raised concerns about lack of outreach to Riverside County and possible added fees for residents. The bill was held pending quorum and later noted as enjoying a due pass recommendation, though no final roll was taken in the excerpt. AB 1579, which expands the Children’s Crisis Continuum Pilot Program to allow additional CDSS-approved residential models, drew strong support from San Francisco County, Seneca Family of Agencies, and several counties and advocacy groups, who argued the current crisis residential model is financially and operationally unworkable and leaves youth in hospitals or emergency departments. The Youth Law Center and allied organizations opposed the bill, saying it departs from the original small, community-based crisis model and could lead to more institutional care. The committee passed the bill 6-0 to Appropriations. AB 1628 would extend California’s safe surrender window for newborns from 72 hours to 30 days. The author and fire service supporters said the change would better reflect postpartum recovery and help prevent unsafe abandonment; there was no opposition, and the bill passed 6-0. AB 1634, dealing with the “Kids” specialty license plate program, sought to raise plate fees and revise distribution formulas to generate more revenue for child safety and child care programs. Supporters said the update would modernize outdated 1992 pricing and expand county access, while a committee member objected that the bill would reallocate funds away from state agencies and private nonprofits; the bill was moved on a 5-0 vote with some members not voting. AB 1643 would streamline child support enrollment by having courts transmit support orders directly to child support agencies unless a custodial parent opts out. Supporters said automatic enrollment would reduce poverty and remove paperwork barriers, while opponents warned it could undermine parent choice and create problems for families with sensitive circumstances. The committee passed the bill 6-0. AB 1708 would require regions receiving HHAP homelessness funds to more meaningfully engage smaller cities; many city officials supported it as a way to include jurisdictions that are doing local homelessness work, while Los Angeles’ mayor’s office opposed it. The bill passed 5-0. AB 2395 would standardize access to the child support debt reduction program; supporters described it as a way to help low-income obligors escape uncollectible government-owed debt, while receiving parents and child support agencies warned it could reduce money owed to families and needs more work. The bill passed 4-0. The committee then began AB 1914, which would require local governments to plan for child care in general plans; supporters framed child care as essential infrastructure, while at least one member raised concerns about state mandates on local jurisdictions, and the excerpt ends before any vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• the support they rely on to pay rent, buy food, and So families do not lose the support they rely on
• supporting children and families, and understand how early experiences are connected... ...and services
• Supportive Services, or IHSS, program.
• Family resource centers provide concrete supports.
• Adrienne Shilton, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, and proud support

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• better support families like mine.
• Supporting direct support workers means supporting those children and their families.
• Supporting direct support workers means supporting those children and their families.
• But right now, families need supports and services now. DSPs need increases now.
• But right now, families need supports and services now. DSPs need increases now.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I urge you to support the increase in funding for ABA services so other families can experience this
• Your support for community services is crucial.
• As both the demand for this critical recovery support service and the need to support people to access
• I'm here today to support rate increases for therapy services.
• There is both a need for this critical recovery support service as well as the need to support people

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• OFCO supports expanding services for children and families in this context, and, as highlighted in our
• The families that need the services the most will not engage in services.
• The families that need the services the most will not engage in services.
• The families that need the services the most will not engage in services.
• The families that need the services the most will not engage in services.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2511, which would define “imminent physical harm” in the child welfare context as a substantial risk of serious harm arising from home conditions, caregiver conduct, neglect, substance abuse, unsafe environments, or other circumstances likely to cause significant injury. Representative Tom Dent, the sponsor, said the bill was intended to give caseworkers clearer tools to protect children while still recognizing the importance of keeping families together. Supporters, including some foster parents, kinship caregivers, advocates, and individuals with lived experience, argued that the current standard is too vague and has contributed to child fatalities and near-fatalities, especially in cases involving fentanyl exposure, chronic neglect, and abuse. They said clearer language would help courts and caseworkers intervene earlier and more consistently. Opponents, including legal aid, public defense, and child welfare policy groups, argued the bill is legally problematic, could conflict with existing statutes and ICWA-informed language, and would not address root causes such as service gaps, training, and inconsistent implementation. DCYF testified “other,” saying the bill could add clarity but that the language needed refinement; the sponsor said he was open to working on changes. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 2660, which would allow courts at shelter care hearings to order parents of children under age five to comply with safety-related conditions, evaluations, or services when the child is returned home, with referrals required within seven days and participation not treated as an admission of abuse or neglect. The sponsor, Representative Ortiz-Self, said the bill is aimed at critical incidents and would give caseworkers and courts more ability to require safeguards for very young children when families are not voluntarily engaging in services. DCYF and the Office of the Family and Children’s Ombuds supported the bill, saying it could help prevent tragedies by allowing earlier court-ordered services and safety conditions. Some advocates and parents also supported it, describing cases where removal or court intervention helped protect children. Opponents, including public defense and some family-support organizations, raised constitutional and due process concerns, argued that services are not the same as immediate safety, and warned the bill could shift problems without fixing underlying service shortages. The sponsor and DCYF discussed the need for follow-up on language and implementation, but no committee action or vote was taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The related behavioral health and other services that support CRA families include ensuring workforce
• But I want to be clear: shifting more families to community support only works if those supports are
• But I want to be clear, shifting more families to community support only works if those supports clear
• , shifting more families to community support only works if those supports are properly resourced.
• Even with the CRA, the challenges to accessing support and services still exist for these families, along

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Children, Families, and Persons with Disabilities held a hybrid hearing on a series of child welfare bills focused on DCF, foster care, mandated reporting, educational records, and family support. Chair Kennedy and Chair Livingstone opened with accessibility and testimony rules, then heard testimony on bills including S.127 on expanding mandated reporters, S.107/H.235 on a Foster Children’s Bill of Rights, S.106/H.228 on transferring foster care review from DCF to the Office of the Child Advocate, H.258/S.125 on an electronic backpack for foster children’s educational records, H.205 on kinship foster care background checks, H.246/H.266 on minimizing trauma in care and protection cases, and S.159 on support for families after sudden unexpected infant death. Supporters of the mandated reporter bill, led by Sen. Feeney and Foxborough advocates, described a local model that trains all adults who work with children and argued the state should scale that approach statewide to improve recognition and reporting of abuse. Testimony on the foster care bills emphasized the need for clearer rights, better notice to children and attorneys, stronger remedies, and independent oversight. Advocates, youth with lived experience, and legal organizations described placement instability, delayed notifications, abuse in care, poor educational continuity, and the need for rights around safety, family contact, culture, language, and access to records. Several witnesses urged that the Foster Children’s Bill of Rights include enforceable court remedies, not just reporting requirements. On the oversight bill, supporters argued DCF should not review its own foster care system and pointed to poor outcomes, high placement instability, and recent investigative reporting as evidence for moving review responsibilities to the Office of the Child Advocate. On the electronic backpack bill, testimony focused on the need for real-time data sharing and a centralized system so schools can receive foster students’ records quickly and support continuity. On the trauma-minimization bill, Rep. Miskin framed the proposal as a set of practical changes to reduce harm during removals and court involvement. On the SUID bill, Sen. Lovely said families should be given information about available grief and support resources after an infant death. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• That support is critical for hospital services.
• More broadly, our members support a plan for family preservation services in our state, both for families
• of family violence services in Houston.
• All that money went from our support services.
• that's through family support services or... continuing funding for the Texas Family First pilots.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think it's covered Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support
• Trevor Nelson with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.
• Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.
• Living and support their family.
• Michael Henning, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on AB 262, which would direct the new California Housing and Homelessness Agency to study the needs of pregnant people experiencing homelessness and evaluate a voluntary “Pink Alert” notification system. Supporters, including the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and a mutual-aid volunteer, said the bill would help identify gaps in housing and prenatal services for a highly vulnerable population. Members generally supported the study concept, though one senator cautioned that the “Pink Alert” name could imply a missing-person alert. The bill was moved to Appropriations on a 3-0 vote and placed on call. Members then heard AB 673, creating the Unaccompanied Youth Support Grant Program for 16- and 17-year-old homeless students not in a parent or guardian’s custody. The Superintendent of Public Instruction and advocates said the bill would help connect youth to housing, basic needs, tutoring, employment readiness, and mental health services, while opponents raised concerns about duplication with existing school and county services and staffing shortages. The author and supporters argued the program would fill gaps for youth who often fall through existing systems. The bill passed to Appropriations on a 3-0 vote and was held on call. The committee also approved AB 1575, which updates the Lanterman Act to replace the term “consumer” with person-first language for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and AB 2510, which would expand CalWORKs family reunification aid so families do not lose support when only some children are removed from the home. AB 1688, requiring broader notice when abuse or neglect is alleged in foster placements so attorneys for other children in the placement can check on their safety, also passed to Appropriations. AB 2304, “Gabriel’s Law,” requiring a child in immediate medical need to be seen by a medical professional and clarifying penalties for falsifying child welfare records, passed to Public Safety after testimony from the author, Gabriel Fernandez’s aunt, prosecutors, and a dependency lawyer who opposed parts of the penalty language. The committee then heard AB 1746 on faster county processing of CalWORKs child care requests, with support from the author, advocates, and county welfare directors who said they were still working on amendments; it was moved to Appropriations and held on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• And to be able to give them the type of support they need to maintain support within their family.
• Supportive Services system, or IHSS program.
• long-term services and support system.
• We rely on Medi-Cal, In-Home Supportive Services, and regional center services to survive.
• We support families across California's developmental service systems, and we have walked with families

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• support families with the services they need to be successful.
• Jenny Perlman with Safe and Sound and the Family Services Alliance in San Francisco in support.
• Jenny Perlman was safe and sound in the Family Services Alliance in San Francisco in support.
• Grant, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support. L.
• Grant, California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in support.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Human Services heard a long agenda of bills focused largely on child welfare, foster care, child care, CalWORKs, mandated reporting, and public benefits. Early items included AB 890, which would ease county transfer rules for nonminor dependents in extended foster care; AB 461, which would replace punitive truancy-related penalties with supportive services for families; and AB 753, which would create an interim associate teacher pathway to help address the child care workforce shortage. Testimony on these bills emphasized barriers faced by foster youth, low-income families, and child care providers, and members expressed support for the general policy direction. The committee also heard AB 926 on foster care visitation, AB 563 on early childhood planning and reporting, AB 601 on standardized mandated reporter training, AB 1074 on CalWORKs reunification aid, AB 822 extending the Commission on the State of Hate, AB 970 creating a Los Angeles County mandated reporter pilot, AB 1161 protecting public benefits during disasters, AB 1172 allowing trained staff to administer emergency seizure medication in community care settings, and AB 363 expanding CalWORKs student supports and work-study. Witnesses generally supported these measures as ways to reduce trauma, improve reunification, modernize reporting and training, and expand access to services. County welfare and child welfare groups, advocacy organizations, and providers largely testified in support, while some bills drew concerns from county representatives about implementation or needed amendments. Several bills were voted out of committee, often unanimously and sometimes as amended, including AB 926, AB 563, AB 601, AB 1074, AB 822, AB 970, AB 1161, and AB 1172; AB 1172 was reported on call. The committee also took up consent items and later voted on subcommittee-held bills AB 461, AB 753, and AB 890, leaving them on call. At the end of the hearing, the committee heard AB 1211, which would protect CalFresh benefits from federal cuts and require a feasibility study on increasing benefits and eligibility; testimony stressed rising food insecurity and the economic importance of food assistance, but the transcript ends before a final vote on that bill.