Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would create presumption of unsupervised family time in dependency cases; committee advances measure
Summary
AB 926 would create a rebuttable presumption that visits between parents and children in foster care are unsupervised unless the court finds substantial danger to the child. Proponents and child‑advocate attorneys said supervised office visits can be restrictive and traumatic; counties signaled willingness to work on the standard language.
Assemblymember McKinner introduced AB 926 to change how family time is ordered in dependency proceedings: instead of supervising visits by default, the bill would create a rebuttable presumption that family time is unsupervised unless the court finds a substantial danger to the child that cannot be mitigated by other reasonable means.
Julie Hannigan of Dependency Legal Services and attorneys for children said the current practice in many counties defaults to supervised visits in CPS offices — limited hours, closed holidays, and settings that exclude extended family and normal cultural practices. “Family time promotes repair and stability and fosters healthy relationships and attachments,” Hannigan told the committee. She and other supporters argued supervised visits are often used as a surveillance tool rather than focused therapeutic programming.
Children’s Law Center and attorneys who represent children testified that supervised CPS‑office visits often result in one‑hour sessions and months of restricted contact that heighten trauma for children and make reunification harder. Supporters emphasized that nothing in AB 926 prevents observation or assessment when appropriate, or tailored therapeutic services for parent‑child interaction problems.
County officials — represented by the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) — said they support the bill’s policy direction but raised concerns about the proposed legal standard for the rebuttable presumption. CWDA said it would work with the author to find language that balances child safety and access to unsupervised family time. Committee members asked questions about the statutory language, the definition of “substantial danger,” and whether the measure could unintentionally shorten judicial discretion when children’s safety is at risk.
After discussion, and with the author’s pledge to continue negotiations on the standard language, the committee moved AB 926 to Human Services.
