Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill to require attorneys to follow wishes of non‑minor dependents in foster care
Summary
The Senate Human Services Committee voted to pass AB 373, which would clarify that attorneys appointed for non‑minor dependents (ages 18–20) should advocate for those clients' expressed wishes rather than substitute the attorney’s judgment, with safeguards for safety remaining in place.
AB 373 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio passed out of the Senate Human Services Committee on a 4–1 vote after presentations from youth advocates and legal services groups.
Assemblymember Blanca Rubio told the committee the bill is intended to align legal practice with the fact that non‑minor dependents aged 18–20 are legal adults and should be able to direct their own representation in dependency court. "This bill affirms these clients' autonomy as legal adults," Rubio said.
The Children's Law Center of California's Julie McCormick, a policy attorney and foster‑youth advocate, and Claire (Claire Cepena) of California Youth Connection described experiences where attorneys advocated based on a perceived "best interest" instead of the client's stated preference. McCormick said the change would still allow social workers and courts to raise safety concerns and permit courts to override a client's preference when safety requires it.
Supporters argued the bill would strengthen attorney‑client relationships and promote self‑determination for young adults leaving foster care; testimony emphasized housing, education and medical decisions as areas where client‑directed representation matters. No witnesses spoke in opposition during the committee hearing.
The committee recorded a motion to pass the bill (as noted by the clerk as "pass") and later voted 4–1 to advance AB 373 to the next committee.
The bill's text clarifies counsel's duties for "non‑minor dependents" (age 18–20) in dependency proceedings but retains court authority to override a client's expressed wishes on safety grounds. Implementation details (for example, training or judicial practice guidance) were not adopted at the hearing and would fall to subsequent committee work and any implementing guidance by court or agencies.
Supporters: Children's Law Center of California; California Youth Connection; Alliance for Children's Rights.
What happens next: AB 373 moves to the next committee for consideration with the committee's recommendation to pass.
