AB 1967
CFC WatchingsJuveniles
CFC Is Watching AB 1967
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages. Hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee in 5 days.
June 11, 2026
The Honorable Thomas J. Umberg
Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 3240
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1967 (Zbur) – Juveniles – CONCERNS AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS
Dear Chair Umberg and Members of the Committee:
California Family Council, representing thousands of California families and more than 2,000 churches, writes to express concerns with AB 1967 and to respectfully request two amendments. We do not oppose the bill's central purpose. Former foster youth between 18 and 21 whose guardians have died or stopped supporting them should not be locked out of extended foster care by a technicality. The bill's reforms to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388.1 address a real problem, and we take no issue with them.
Our concerns lie with the amendments to Sections 329 and 331, which govern minor-initiated dependency proceedings. As amended, the bill would allow a minor or a minor's attorney to submit an affidavit alleging parental abuse or neglect by mail, facsimile, or email; require the social worker to assess the custodial parents' home whenever the minor is residing in a residential facility; and impose a 14-day deadline on the juvenile court to review a social worker's decision not to file a petition.
Each change may be reasonable on its own. Together they accelerate state proceedings concerning a family without adding a single corresponding protection for parents. The bill is silent on whether parents must even be notified that their home is the subject of a mandated safety assessment, or that a court is conducting a 14-day review that could end in an order to commence dependency proceedings. When the state moves faster, due process must keep pace.
We are also concerned about how these streamlined procedures will interact with the undefined boundaries of “serious emotional damage” under Section 300(c). Counties differ widely in how they apply that standard, and nothing in current law forecloses the theory that a parent's faith-informed decision not to affirm a minor's stated gender identity is itself emotional harm. AB 1967 does not say that, and we do not claim it does. But it builds a faster procedural track on which such claims could travel. The Legislature should close that door now rather than leave it to county-by-county interpretation.
We therefore respectfully request two amendments:
- A clarifying provision in Section 329 stating that a parent's religious beliefs, or a parent's good-faith decisions regarding a minor's social or medical gender transition, do not by themselves constitute abuse or neglect for purposes of a safety assessment or substitute care provider safety assessment.
- A requirement that custodial parents receive notice that their home is being assessed and an opportunity to be heard before the juvenile court completes the review required by Section 331.
These amendments would not slow help to any abused child. Genuine abuse and neglect remain fully actionable under Section 300. The amendments simply confirm that faith and lawful parenting decisions are not evidence of harm, and that parents are heard before a court acts on allegations against them.
Thank you for your consideration. Unless the bill is amended as described, we ask that California Family Council be recorded with a CONCERNS position. Please contact me at (949) 244-2080 or [email protected] with any questions.
Sincerely,
Greg Burt
Vice President
California Family Council
(1)Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of the child’s parents or guardian. Under existing law, a proceeding in the juvenile court to declare a child to be a dependent child of the court is commenced by a social worker who files a petition with the court. Existing law also requires a social worker to investigate whether a petition should be filed with the court whenever any person applies to the social worker to commence proceedings in the juvenile court by affidavit. This bill would require, if an application to commence proceedings is submitted by a minor on their own behalf, or by the minor’s attorney, and the minor is currently residing at a residential facility for children and youth, the social worker, when conducting a safety assessment or substitute care provider safety assessment, to also assess the safety of the home of those who hold custodial rights of the minor. The bill would authorize the application to be submitted to the social worker by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail. (2)Existing law authorizes, if the social worker fails to file a petition within 3 weeks of that application, the person to apply to the juvenile court to review the decision of the social worker and affirm the decision or order the social worker to commence juvenile court proceedings. This bill would require, if the initial application to commence proceedings was submitted to the social worker by a minor on their own behalf, or by the minor’s attorney, the court to review the decision and either affirm the decision or order the social worker to commence juvenile court proceedings within 14 days of the minor’s application to the court for review. (3)Existing law authorizes the juvenile court to retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a ward or a dependent child of the juvenile court until the ward or dependent child attains 21 years of age. Existing law also authorizes a nonminor who has not yet attained 21 years of age and who exited foster care at or after the age of majority, to petition the court to assume dependency jurisdiction over the nonminor, if they meet one of several specified criteria, including, among others, that they are a nonminor former dependent who received specified public assistance or adoption assistance benefits after attaining 18 years of age and their former guardian or adoptive parent no longer provides ongoing support and no longer receives aid on behalf of the nonminor. This bill would expand the eligibility criteria for filing that petition by eliminating the requirement that the nonminor’s former guardians or adoptive parents, as applicable, no longer receive benefits on their behalf. Existing law additionally authorizes the nonminors described above to enter into a voluntary reentry agreement, either before or after filing the petition to assume dependency jurisdiction, in order to establish eligibility for foster care benefits. This bill would require, if the nonminor enters into a voluntary reentry agreement pursuant to those provisions, the juvenile court to order that benefits paid on behalf of the nonminor pursuant to specified public assistance or adoption assistance benefits be suspended until the court determines that it should not assume dependency jurisdiction over the nonminor or until the juvenile court terminates dependency jurisdiction over the nonminor subsequent to assuming dependency, as applicable. The bill would require suspension of benefits under these provision to be effective the date the nonminor executes the voluntary reentry agreement, unless the court specifies a different effective date, as specified. This bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by means of all-county letters or similar instructions until January 1, 2028. (4)By imposing additional duties on county employees, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.