Skip to main content
Independent and nonpartisan. SaveYourState is a civic information resource. It is not a government website and is not affiliated with any government agency, party, or campaign.

California · 2025–26 Regular Session · Assembly Bill

AB 926: Juvenile court: visitation.

Did not advance Official data

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed one chamber
  4. Passed both chambers
  5. Enacted
  6. Did not advance

Last official action: ·Record last updated:

Plain-language summary

AB 926 is a assembly bill introduced in the California Assembly on February 19, 2025. According to its official title, it concerns: Juvenile court: visitation. Primary sponsor: Mike Gipson (D). It lists 2 additional sponsors. Most recent recorded action (February 2, 2026): From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Generated automatically from the official title, sponsor list, and status record only. It does not characterize the bill’s purpose or effects. How summaries are written

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law establishes a system of statewide child welfare services, administered by the State Department of Social Services and county child welfare agencies, with the intent that all children are entitled to be safe and free from abuse and neglect. 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, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a dependent child. Existing law authorizes the court to make orders regarding visitation between a child and parent or legal guardian, subject to specified conditions. Existing law prohibits a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child.

This bill would require, at the initial petition hearing, the court to make an order regarding visitation between the child and the parent or legal guardian, setting forth the frequency and duration most conducive to quality family time, and whether the visitation must be supervised. The bill would require the court to order contact between the parent and child commencing within 72 hours.

The bill would remove the above-described prohibition prohibiting a visitation from jeopardizing the safety of a child. This bill would require a court to order unsupervised visitation between a parent or legal guardian and a child or children, unless unsupervised visitation is contrary to the child’s welfare and there is a substantial danger to the physical health of the child or the child is suffering severe emotional damage and the child’s physical or emotional health cannot reasonably be protected without supervised visitation, or there is substantial evidence that the parent or legal guardian may flee the jurisdiction with the child. The bill would require, if the court orders supervised visitation, the court to specify the factual basis for its order and order the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent or guardian to supervise the visitation. The bill would also require social workers or their designee to supervise visits in specified circumstances when an alternate individual has not been approved to supervise visits. The bill would require the court to order that the agency has discretion to liberalize the visitation to unsupervised unless the court finds granting this discretion would be contrary to the child’s safety.

Existing law requires social workers to create reports and recommendations to be reviewed by the court as part of a permanency review hearing.

This bill would require social workers to specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child and, if visitation has not been liberalized, what efforts were put in place to liberalize the parent or legal guardian’s visits and why liberalization was contrary to the child’s welfare.

By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Democratic 3

NameRolePartyChamberDistrict
Mike GipsonPrimary sponsorDemocraticAssembly65
Isaac BryanCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly55
Lisa CalderonCo-sponsorDemocraticAssembly56

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

  1. From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
  2. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution.
  3. In committee: Held under submission.
  4. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.
  5. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.
  7. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S.
  8. From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
  9. Read first time. To print.

Sources

  1. California Legislative Information — pubinfo database export
  2. Official bill page