logout

Store Research

ASSEMBLY BILL 686 (ARONER – 2000)

CHAPTER 911, STATUTES OF 2000, AB 686

Some bill research does not include the Governor's file because at the time we researched the bill, the sitting Governor had not released his chaptered bill file. If the Governor's file is not included with this particular research, please contact our office (1-530-666-1917 or quote@legintent.com) and we will be happy to provide this file at no charge if it is available. Please Note: Governor files did not exist prior to 1943.

As enacted in 2000, Assembly Bill 686 amended sections 362, 366.3, and 727 and added section 319 all of the Welfare and Institutions Code regarding termination of jurisdiction in the case of dependent children.  (See Exhibit #1h)  This bill was introduced on February 23, 1999 by Assembly member Dion Aroner at the request of the California Youth Law Center.  (See Exhibits #1a; #3, page 5; and #14, page 1)

Assembly Bill 686 was assigned to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary and the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services and the Senate Committee on Judiciary where policy issues raised by the bill were considered.  (See Exhibit #3, #8 and #10)  The fiscal ramifications of the bill were considered by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Appropriations.  (See Exhibits #5 and #12)  Six amendments were made to Assembly Bill 686.  (See Exhibits #1b through #1g, and #2)  Subsequent to legislative approval, Governor Gray Davis signed the bill on September 29, 2000, and it was recorded by the Secretary of State as Chapter 911 of the Statutes of 2000.  (See Exhibits #1h and #2)

The Concurrence in Senate Amendments Analysis of Assembly Bill 686 as last amended described the bill as follows:

SUMMARY:    Authorizes the juvenile dependency court to continue jurisdiction over a child who has reached the age of majority if the court finds that the county welfare department has failed to provide the child with specific information and assistance in preparing for the future and that termination of jurisdiction would be harmful to the best interests of the child.
(See Exhibit #16, page 1)