AB 926 revises California’s juvenile dependency review and permanency hearing rules to prioritize maintaining parent–child relationships while formalizing the information and timing the court receives. It requires social workers and caregivers to file more specific reports before review and permanency hearings, directs courts to order unsupervised visitation by default unless narrowly justified otherwise, and mandates caregiver notice using the Judicial Council’s JV‑290 form.
The bill matters for counties, child welfare agencies, attorneys, foster and relative caregivers, and families in the dependency system because it reallocates decision points (making unsupervised contact the norm), raises the evidentiary burden on agencies to show detriment, creates mandatory timelines for reports and initial contact, and imposes new operational duties — assessments, supervision responsibilities, and multilingual caregiver notifications — that will affect workload and placement planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires social workers and caregivers to file and serve specified reports at least 10 calendar days before review hearings, makes unsupervised visitation the default at review and permanency hearings unless the court finds specific safety-based reasons otherwise, and directs agencies to assess and, if necessary, supervise visits when proposed supervisors are not approved. It also mandates that foster and prospective adoptive caregivers receive the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV‑290).
Who It Affects
County child welfare agencies and social workers (added reporting, assessment, and supervision duties), juvenile courts and counsel (new default visitation orders and required factual findings), foster and relative caregivers (receipt of JV‑290 and participation in assessments), and parents—particularly those who are detained, incarcerated, in treatment, or have criminal histories conditional on fingerprint consent.
Why It Matters
AB 926 shifts the presumption toward preserving parent–child contact, raising the evidentiary bar for agencies to restrict visitation and placing concrete operational duties on agencies and courts. That combination changes how risk, permanency timing, and caregiver involvement are balanced in practice and will affect budgets, court time, and case plans.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 926 reworks how juvenile review and permanency hearings treat visitation and what information the court gets beforehand. It makes two procedural changes visible at first glance: (1) social workers must file and serve a supplemental report at least 10 calendar days before a review hearing describing services and efforts toward reunification and, when relevant, efforts to preserve relationships for children age 10 or older who have been in out‑of‑home care six months or longer; and (2) foster and prospective adoptive caregivers must receive the Judicial Council’s Caregiver Information Form (JV‑290) with case recommendations, in the caregiver’s primary language when available.
On visitation, the bill creates a clear presumption: the court must order unsupervised visitation for the parent or guardian unless it makes a specific finding that unsupervised visits would be contrary to the child’s welfare and that supervised visitation is necessary because the child faces substantial danger or severe emotional harm that cannot be prevented by reasonable means other than supervision. If the court orders supervised visitation, it must explain the factual basis for that decision, require the agency to assess persons proposed by a parent to supervise, and direct the agency to supervise visits itself when no proposed supervisor is approved.
When visitation is newly ordered or materially changed, contact must begin within 72 hours.The bill also clarifies evidentiary standards and timelines at review and permanency hearings. The social worker bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that returning a child would create a substantial risk of detriment.
For certain high‑risk categories — children under three at removal, sibling groups meeting Section 361.5(C) criteria, missing parents, or parents with qualifying felony convictions — the court may accelerate a Section 366.26 hearing to 120 days based on clear and convincing evidence. The statutes require the court to consider criminal history obtained after removal only if the parent consented to fingerprinting for the case plan, and to take account of barriers that incarceration, detention, deportation, or other circumstances create for parents in accessing services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Social workers must file and serve a supplemental report at least 10 calendar days before any review hearing describing services offered, efforts toward reunification and, for children 10+ in placement six months or longer, efforts to maintain relationships with people important to the child.
The court must order unsupervised visitation unless it finds unsupervised contact would be contrary to the child’s welfare and there is substantial danger to physical health or severe emotional damage that cannot be addressed without supervision; the court must state the factual basis for any supervised‑visit order.
If visitation is newly ordered or substantially changed, the court must require contact to begin within 72 hours after the hearing.
When a court orders supervised visitation, the agency must assess persons proposed by the parent to supervise the visits and, if no one is approved, the agency or its designee must supervise visits at times that work for both parent and child; the agency also has discretion to liberalize to unsupervised visits unless the court finds that would be unsafe.
Foster parents, relative caregivers, and approved prospective adoptive parents must receive a summary of the social worker’s recommendation and the Judicial Council Caregiver Information Form (JV‑290) at least 10 days before the hearing, in the caregiver’s primary language when available, with instructions on filing the form with the court.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Appearance calendar and notice rules for review hearings
The bill requires every juvenile court hearing that reviews a dependent child’s status to be placed on the appearance calendar and for the court to advise all persons present of future hearing dates and their right to be present and represented by counsel. Notice generally follows Section 293; Sections 294 and 295 remain exceptions. Practically, this centralizes attendance expectations: courts must ensure that parties understand rights to presence and counsel, which can reduce forfeited appearances and promote active participation in review decisions.
Pre‑hearing social worker report and caregiver notification (10‑day rule)
Social workers must file a supplemental report at least 10 calendar days before a review hearing detailing services provided or offered, progress toward reunification, and, where relevant, prognosis for return. For children 10 and older with six months or more in placement, the report must include efforts to maintain relationships with people important to the child. The social worker must serve the report on parents, child counsel, and any child advocate and provide a summary and JV‑290 to foster parents, relative caregivers, and approved prospective adoptive parents in the caregiver’s primary language when available. This creates firm timelines for agencies and gives caregivers earlier, standardized access to court recommendations, which affects case preparation and placement decisions.
Reports from facilities, foster parents, and caregivers
Prior to hearings that could return a child to parents, create guardianship, or result in adoption, community care facilities and foster family agencies must file recommendations or JV‑290 forms. Foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents approved for adoption may also file recommendations. The court must consider these caregiver submissions before determining disposition, elevating caregiver input from informal practice to a formal piece of the record the court must weigh.
Six‑month review: presumption of return and visitation defaults
At the six‑month review (or sooner under Section 361.49), the court must order return to parent custody unless the social worker proves by a preponderance of the evidence that return would pose substantial risk of detriment. The subdivision compels the court to examine criminal history only when parents consented to fingerprinting for the case plan, to consider whether parents in certified treatment programs can accept the child, and to weigh progress and barriers faced by parents (including incarceration or deportation). Critically, it directs courts to order unsupervised visitation unless a narrowly drawn safety standard is met; when supervised visits are ordered the court must explain the factual basis and require agency assessment of proposed supervisors, or agency supervision where needed. The provision also mandates contact start within 72 hours after a new or changed visitation order.
Twelve‑month permanency hearing: burdens, placement considerations, and transition services
By 12 months the court must decide the permanent plan and, except when the social worker proves detriment, return the child to the parent. The social worker bears the burden. The court must consider post‑removal criminal history only with fingerprint consent, the availability of family‑friendly treatment programs, and the parent’s engagement with services. For youth 16 and older, the court must decide whether transition services to adulthood are available. Visitation defaults and the requirement that the order specify frequency, duration, and setting mirror the review hearing rules; the court must also consider out‑of‑state placement appropriateness if relevant.
Extensions, accelerated 366.26 hearings, and assessments for termination of reunification
If reunification timeframes elapse without return, the court may continue the case up to six months only if it finds a substantial probability of return and that the parent has maintained contact and made significant progress. The statute allows accelerated Section 366.26 hearings within 120 days in defined circumstances (e.g., children under three, certain sibling groups, absent parents, parental felony convictions) when the evidentiary thresholds are met. When a 366.26 hearing is ordered, the court directs agencies to prepare detailed assessments covering search efforts, contact history, a medical/educational evaluation (including the health and education summary), screening of prospective adoptive parents or guardians, and consideration of tribal customary adoption for Indian children. These requirements formalize the material the court must have before deciding termination or permanency alternatives.
Kinship, guardianship eligibility, and scope of 'reasonable services' evidence
The bill clarifies kin definitions for guardianship and Kin‑GAP eligibility, protects a relative’s preference for guardianship from being treated as an adoption reluctance, and requires that relatives receive information on guardianship versus adoption regardless of immigration status. It also lists that certain circumstances (placement in preadoptive home, concurrent planning, or case plans that include permanent placement services) do not by themselves prove a failure to provide reasonable services. These provisions reduce procedural surprises for kin caregivers and set boundaries on what counts as reasonable services.
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
- Children age 10 and older in long‑term placements: the statute requires the court to consider efforts to maintain relationships with people important to the child, formalizing a focus on social and emotional continuity in permanency planning.
- Parents engaged in treatment or distance contact (incarcerated, detained, or deported): the bill requires courts to consider barriers to service access and to avoid treating treatment enrollment as prima facie detriment, preserving opportunities for reunification when appropriate.
- Foster and relative caregivers: receiving the JV‑290 and a summary of recommendations at least 10 days before hearings gives caregivers earlier and clearer notice of case direction and the opportunity to file reports and have their input considered.
- Juvenile courts and counsel: the law provides clearer default rules and required factual findings (e.g., on visitation and detriment), reducing ad hoc decision‑making and giving judges structured standards to apply.
Who Bears the Cost
- County child welfare agencies and social workers: new obligations include preparing supplemental reports within a 10‑day window, providing JV‑290 forms in caregivers’ primary languages when available, assessing proposed supervisors for visits, and supervising visits when no approved person exists — all of which increase workload and likely require funding.
- County budgets and local governments: agency supervision of visits, linguistic support for JV‑290 distribution, and increased assessments for 366.26 proceedings will create fiscal pressure on already constrained budgets.
- Court operations and defenders: the requirement for courts to make specific factual findings about visitation, detriment, and placement options will increase the factual record needed at hearings and potentially lengthen proceedings, affecting calendars and counsel preparation time.
- Relative and prospective adoptive caregivers: while they gain notice rights, they may also face expanded screening and assessment (criminal record and prior referrals checks) as part of evaluations that could be intrusive and time consuming.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma AB 926 tries to resolve is straightforward and sharp: preserve parent–child relationships by default versus protect children from subtle or cumulative harms that may not meet a narrow safety standard — while doing so without imposing unfunded operational duties on already resource‑strained agencies. Strengthening visitation presumptions advances normalcy and family ties, but it forces agencies and courts to shoulder harder evidentiary and logistical work to justify exceptions and to put liberalized contact into practice.
AB 926 advances a presumption of unsupervised contact and tightens pre‑hearing notice and report windows, but those choices create practical and legal frictions. First, making unsupervised visitation the default shifts the burden to agencies and courts to justify restrictions; in cases involving subtle but real safety risks (history of emotional abuse, coercive control, or nonphysical neglect), the statute’s narrow safety trigger may force repeated evidentiary hearings and contested factfinding about harm that is not easily captured by the 'substantial danger' or 'severe emotional damage' language.
Second, the agency duties — assessing proposed supervisors, supervising visits when needed, preparing multilingual JV‑290 packages, and meeting 10‑day filing deadlines — require capacity the counties may lack. Absent new funding or clear implementation guidance, counties could respond by pushing decisions into court (increasing judicial workload) or by conservative default practices that run contrary to AB 926’s intent.
Third, the criminal‑history rule (considering post‑removal records only where a parent agreed to fingerprinting for the case plan) creates an uneven evidentiary landscape: agencies may lack access to relevant risk information in cases where parents withhold fingerprint consent, complicating the court’s ability to evaluate safety. Finally, concepts like 'individuals who are important to the child,' 'least restrictive setting most conducive to quality family time,' and determinations about whether liberalization is 'contrary to the child’s welfare' are inherently subjective.
Without administrative guidance or model protocols, the result will likely be geographic and county‑level variability in application, potential appellate challenges on sufficiency of factual findings, and predictable disputes over who bears the cost of supervision and translation services.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.