AB 1645, titled the Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely (HUGS) Act of 2026, is a policy bill composed primarily of legislative findings and declarations. It grounds a pro-contact corrections policy in constitutional cases, international standards (the Mandela Rules), American Bar Association standards, and empirical research, and it states the Legislature’s intent to strengthen and protect meaningful, uninhibited physical contact between incarcerated people and their loved ones.
The bill does not itself prescribe new operational rules or funding streams; rather, it signals a statewide policy direction: limit the circumstances under which nonsexual physical contact during in-person visits may be denied, terminated, or punished. For compliance officers, corrections executives, and legal counsel, the significance is practical: AB 1645 sets an explicit statutory standard that will shape regulatory decisions, departmental guidance, and future rulemaking affecting visitation policy, parole writeups, and facility design.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 1645 compiles findings and declares legislative intent to protect in-person, nonsexual physical contact between incarcerated people and family or family-like partners, citing constitutional law, the Mandela Rules, ABA standards, and research linking visitation to reduced recidivism. It directs that circumstances for denying such contact be limited.
Who It Affects
The bill speaks to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), county jails, parole authorities, incarcerated people, their children and family members, and entities that provide family-focused programming or visiting facilities.
Why It Matters
By elevating family contact into statutory policy, the bill creates a legal backdrop for policy changes, administrative guidance, and potential litigation; agencies will have to reconcile existing security practices, parole writeup patterns, and facility operations with a new presumption favoring contact.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1645 is largely a findings-and-intent statute that makes three moves. First, it collects legal authorities and empirical studies to frame family contact as a constitutional, humane, and evidence-based correctional policy.
The text cites U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit family-rights decisions, international standards (the Mandela Rules), American Bar Association correctional standards, historical California law, and multiple research reviews linking visitation to better health, fewer infractions, and lower recidivism.
Second, the bill restates specific components of a child-centered “bill of rights” developed by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership—children’s access to visiting and touch, supports for families, and the goal of lifelong parent-child relationships—and highlights operational ideas such as child-friendly visiting spaces, family services coordinators, and training for staff who work with children. It also points out practical problems observed during the COVID-19 pandemic and notes parole writeups tied to benign touching as a recurring source of extended incarceration and state cost.Third, and most consequential for administrative actors, the bill expresses the Legislature’s intent to “strengthen and protect” meaningful physical contact and to “limit the circumstances” in which nonsexual physical contact during in-person visits may be denied, restricted, or punished.
That language is directional rather than prescriptive: AB 1645 sets a policy expectation but does not itself change existing regulations, create new enforcement mechanisms, define terms like “nonsexual physical contact,” or appropriate funds.Because the bill is declaratory, its near-term effects will depend on what regulators, CDCR leadership, county jail administrators, and parole authorities do next. Expect pressure for revisions to visiting rules, discipline and parole assessment protocols, staff training, and visiting-space design; also expect advocacy and potential litigation testing how the new statutory policy should be translated into enforceable practices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 1645 is predominantly findings and intent language; its operative clause states the Legislature’s intent to limit when nonsexual physical contact during in-person visitation can be denied, but it does not itself create specific regulatory requirements or funding.
The bill explicitly grounds its policy in constitutional family-rights precedents (Santosky v. Kramer and the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Wolf Child) and international standards (the UN Mandela Rules, including Rule 58 on regular communication and Rule 43 prohibiting family-contact bans as disciplinary sanctions).
AB 1645 endorses the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership bill of rights and cites its recommendations, including actions like child-centered visiting rooms, family services coordinators, and a suggested allocation of 5 percent of corrections-related budgets to family supports.
The text documents an implementation problem: incarcerated people receive parole denials for conduct described as ‘excessive contact’ (e.g.
hugging or helping a child), and it highlights Legislative Analyst Office cost figures—$127,788 per year per incarcerated person and an example $191,682 minimum cost for continued incarceration tied to such denials.
The bill calls out COVID-19’s impact on visitation—cancellations and severe restrictions from March 2020 to April 2021—and uses that history to support a presumption in favor of resuming and protecting in-person contact.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Constitutional and appellate foundations for family contact
This subsection cites Santosky v. Kramer and a Ninth Circuit decision to situate family-contact protections in constitutional law, arguing that parent-child relationship rights logically extend to family-like partners. The practical implication is a legal framing: visitation and physical contact are presented not merely as discretionary privileges but as aspects of protected family relationships, which can influence how courts evaluate future challenges to restrictive policies.
Adoption of the SF Children of Incarcerated Parents bill of rights framework
The bill reproduces elements of a local ‘bill of rights’—a child’s right to speak, see, and touch parents; a right to support while a parent is incarcerated; and a right to lifelong parental relationships—along with suggested actions (child-friendly visiting rooms, proximity considerations when siting facilities, designated family services coordinators, and a 5% budget allocation). These proposals are presented as policy guidance that state and local agencies can use to reform visiting practices and family services.
Reference to ABA correctional standards on visits
AB 1645 cites multiple ABA standards that recommend family-friendly visiting spaces, reasonable visiting times, minimal exclusion of visitors for prior convictions, and provision of contact visits absent a specific, individualized danger. By incorporating these standards, the bill creates a benchmark that advocates can use to argue for specific procedural and spatial changes in visiting policy.
Parole writeups, costs, and pandemic impacts
The bill points to parole-denial practices tied to benign physical contact, quantifies incarceration costs via the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and recounts the visitation disruptions of COVID-19. Together these findings frame restricted contact as both a human-cost and a fiscal problem, signaling to budgetary offices and corrections administrators that changes in visitation policy could carry measurable financial implications.
Legislative intent to protect meaningful physical contact and limit denials
These subsections state the Legislature’s intent to strengthen meaningful physical contact between incarcerated people and loved ones and to limit when nonsexual physical contact may be denied, terminated, or suspended. The language is policy-oriented rather than prescriptive: it instructs future action and review, creating a statutory posture that will inform rulemaking, departmental guidance, and legal interpretation without directly altering codified rights or procedures.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Incarcerated people — The bill elevates family contact as a legislative priority, which can lead to fewer visit restrictions, improved mental health supports, and reduced disciplinary consequences for benign physical contact.
- Children and caregivers of incarcerated parents — By endorsing child-centered visiting environments and family support measures, the bill supports continuity of relationships, potentially reducing trauma and long-term negative outcomes for children.
- Family-service and reentry providers — The statutory emphasis on family contact could unlock programmatic collaborations, justify expanded family services, and improve reentry outcomes that providers rely on to reduce recidivism.
- Advocacy organizations and public-interest lawyers — The bill supplies legal and policy authorities (cases, Mandela Rules, ABA standards) that advocates can use to press for concrete policy and regulatory changes.
Who Bears the Cost
- CDCR and county jail administrators — Translating the intent into practice may require redesigning visiting spaces, revising visitation rules, updating security protocols, and funding additional staff or scheduling, all of which have operational costs.
- Correctional staff and visiting-room supervisors — Staff will need training on new contact policies, de-escalation, and monitoring techniques to preserve safety while enabling physical contact, increasing training time and supervisory burdens.
- Parole boards and disciplinary systems — The bill’s critique of parole denials tied to benign contact may necessitate revisions to disciplinary reporting, parole assessment criteria, and record-keeping practices, imposing administrative work.
- State budgeting offices — If agencies expand visiting programs or allocate funds (the bill references a 5% corrections-related budget suggestion), the state or counties will confront funding choices and trade-offs with other corrections priorities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 1645 exposes is the familiar but difficult trade-off between safety/security and rehabilitation: keeping prisons secure can mean restricting in-person contact, yet limiting family contact undermines rehabilitation and imposes social and fiscal costs; the bill favors contact but provides no concrete operational roadmap or funding to reconcile those competing objectives.
AB 1645 makes a strong policy statement but leaves implementation details to agencies and future legislation. The bill does not define critical terms—most notably “nonsexual physical contact”—nor does it create a private right of action, prescribe enforcement mechanisms, amend parole statutes, or appropriate funds.
That gap means the bill’s immediate legal force is limited to persuasive statutory guidance rather than binding operational change.
Operationalizing the intent will force trade-offs. Maintaining contact while preventing contraband, inappropriate conduct, or safety risks requires clear, enforceable protocols; absent definitions and procedures, administrators must balance competing liabilities.
The bill also raises questions about interaction with other statutory regimes—such as the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) triggers, child-welfare involvement, and parole eligibility rules—which may need legislative or regulatory calibration to avoid conflicting mandates.
Finally, the bill invites litigation testing how strong the Legislature’s intent is in practice. Courts may be asked to interpret whether the findings create enforceable standards or merely background legislative history.
Implementation will require administrative rulemaking, funding decisions, and careful drafting of definitions and exceptions to avoid unintended increases in security incidents or legal exposure.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.