CA AB 651
enactedJuveniles: dependency: incarcerated parent.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Quick answers
Did CA AB 651 pass?
Yes. CA AB 651 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-03. Latest recorded action (2025-10-03): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 274, Statutes of 2025.
What is CA AB 651 about?
Existing law requires notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, proceedings terminating their parental rights or seeking to adjudicate the child of a prisoner a dependent child of the court. Existing law prohibits these proceedings from being adjudicated without the physical presence of the parent unless the court receives a knowing waiver from the parent of their right to be physically present at the proceedings, or an affidavit signed by a person in charge of the incarcerating institution that the prisoner does not intend to appear at the proceeding. Existing law authorizes, in the court's discretion, an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present at those proceedings to be given the opportunity to participate in the proceeding by videoconference, if that technology is available. Existing law authorizes, if videoconferencing technology is not available, the use of teleconferencing. This bill would also require notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, specified additional dependency hearings relating to their child. The bill would additionally require an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present to be given the opportunity to participate in those proceedings by videoconference, and, if videoconferencing technology is not available, require the use of teleconferencing. By increasing the duties of local county jail officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law entitles a minor who is the subject of a juvenile court hearing to be present at that hearing and specifies that the minor has the right to be represented at the hearing by counsel of their choice. Existing law requires the court to inform the minor, if the minor is present at the hearing, of their right to address the court and participate in the hearing. Existing law requires the court, if the minor is 10 years of age or older and not present at the hearing, to determine whether the minor was properly notified of their right to attend the hearing and inquire whether they were given an opportunity to attend. Existing law generally requires the court to continue the hearing to allow the minor to be present, if they were not properly notified or if they wished to present, but were not given the opportunity. Existing law requires the court to continue the hearing only for the period of time necessary to provide the child notice and secure their presence. This bill would expand the above provisions to include nonminor dependents. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors CA AB 651?
Bryan is the primary sponsor of CA AB 651, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law requires notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, proceedings terminating their parental rights or seeking to adjudicate the child of a prisoner a dependent child of the court. Existing law prohibits these proceedings from being adjudicated without the physical presence of the parent unless the court receives a knowing waiver from the parent of their right to be physically present at the proceedings, or an affidavit signed by a person in charge of the incarcerating institution that the prisoner does not intend to appear at the proceeding. Existing law authorizes, in the court's discretion, an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present at those proceedings to be given the opportunity to participate in the proceeding by videoconference, if that technology is available. Existing law authorizes, if videoconferencing technology is not available, the use of teleconferencing. This bill would also require notice of, and the opportunity for an incarcerated parent to be physically present in, specified additional dependency hearings relating to their child. The bill would additionally require an incarcerated parent who has waived the right to be physically present to be given the opportunity to participate in those proceedings by videoconference, and, if videoconferencing technology is not available, require the use of teleconferencing. By increasing the duties of local county jail officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law entitles a minor who is the subject of a juvenile court hearing to be present at that hearing and specifies that the minor has the right to be represented at the hearing by counsel of their choice. Existing law requires the court to inform the minor, if the minor is present at the hearing, of their right to address the court and participate in the hearing. Existing law requires the court, if the minor is 10 years of age or older and not present at the hearing, to determine whether the minor was properly notified of their right to attend the hearing and inquire whether they were given an opportunity to attend. Existing law generally requires the court to continue the hearing to allow the minor to be present, if they were not properly notified or if they wished to present, but were not given the opportunity. Existing law requires the court to continue the hearing only for the period of time necessary to provide the child notice and secure their presence. This bill would expand the above provisions to include nonminor dependents. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
- Introduced
- 2025-04-09
- Latest action
- 2025-10-03 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 274, Statutes of 2025.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Bryanauthor
- Solacheprincipal coauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2025-02-13
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
2025-02-14
From printer. May be heard in committee March 16.
2025-03-17
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-04-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-09
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-10
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
referral-committee
2025-04-22
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-05-07
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-05-23
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-05-27
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-06-03
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1975.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-06-04
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2025-06-18
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-07-02
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-07-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-08-18
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
referral-committee
2025-08-29
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2025-08-29
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2025-09-02
Ordered to special consent calendar.
2025-09-04
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 2522.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2025-09-04
In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling.
committee-passage
2025-09-11
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2025-10-03
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2025-10-03
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 274, Statutes of 2025.
became-law
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-04-08 · pass · 9-0
Member-level votes (9)
- Mark González: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Haney: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Alanis: yes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-04-22 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Kalra: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Lee: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Bryan: yes
Do pass.
2025-05-23 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Calderon: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Hart: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Solache: yes
- Ta: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Fong: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Sanchez: other
AB 651 Bryan Assembly Third Reading
2025-06-03 · pass · 79-0
Member-level votes (79)
- Sanchez: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Haney: yes
- Bains: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Davies: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Soria: yes
- Arambula: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Berman: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Papan: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Lee: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Ward: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Hart: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Celeste Rodriguez: yes
- Fong: yes
- Flora: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Chen: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Ta: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Krell: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Solache: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Addis: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Patel: yes
- Garcia: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Pacheco: yes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-07-01 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (6)
- Wiener: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Pérez: yes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2025-07-08 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Arreguín: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Allen: yes
- Stern: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Laird: yes
- Niello: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Umberg: yes
Placed on suspense file
2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Grayson: yes
Do pass
2025-08-29 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
Special Consent AB651 Bryan et al.
2025-09-04 · pass · 39-0
Member-level votes (40)
- Stern: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- McGuire: yes
- Laird: yes
- Limón: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Alvarado-Gil: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Cortese: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Choi: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Allen: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Blakespear: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Hurtado: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Niello: yes
- Grove: yes
- Jones: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Ochoa Bogh: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Strickland: yes
- McNerney: yes
- Becker: yes
- Reyes: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 651. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.