CaliforniaJudges would rule out less restrictive options before confining youths
Judges would have to find a less restrictive option unsuitable before detaining youths in juvenile hall or committing court wards to facilities that confine them.
What it does
Before holding a youth in juvenile hall while a case proceeds, a judge would have to find that a less restrictive option is unsuitable.
After a court orders a youth held in juvenile hall, a judge would have to reconsider whether detention is still needed if asked, using new or current information.
Before committing a youth made a ward of the court to a facility that confines them, a judge would have to find that a less restrictive option is unsuitable.
If an order making a youth a ward of the court would remove them from a parent or guardian, a judge would first consider efforts to avoid removal and services that could help the youth return home.
Argument forThe required findings could keep some youths in less restrictive settings when judges find those settings suitable.
Argument againstThe extra finding could make urgent detention decisions take longer while judges decide whether less restrictive options are suitable.
More detail
A judge would have to find a less restrictive option unsuitable before ordering juvenile hall detention. This covers youths facing detention in juvenile hall while their cases proceed. The court must also have a legal reason to detain the youth, such as a safety concern or a risk of fleeing.
A judge would have to reconsider whether a youth still needs juvenile hall detention when asked. This applies to a youth already ordered held in juvenile hall. The judge must use new or current information and follow the detention rules.
A judge would have to find a less restrictive option unsuitable before committing a court ward to a facility that confines them. This covers youths made wards of the court and placement in facilities that confine them, including juvenile halls, camps, and secure treatment facilities.
A judge would have to consider efforts to avoid removal and services that could help a youth return home. This applies when an order making a youth a ward of the court would remove them from a parent or guardian. The judge must consider whether reasonable efforts were made to avoid or end removal and whether services could help the parent or guardian care for the youth. The judge must consider these matters before removing the youth from the parent or guardian.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed Assembly
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Sep 30Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 996, Statutes of 2026.Latest
- Sep 30Approved by the Governor Gavin Newsom.Became Law
- Sep 9Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m.To Governor
- Aug 31Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 25. Noes 11.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.Major
- Vote recorded Unfinished Business SB1009 Becker et al. Concurrence. Result: pass.Upper
- Vote recorded SB 1009 Becker Senate Third Reading By Harabedian. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded SB 1009 Becker Senate Third Reading By Harabedian Appeal the Decision of the Speaker By BRYAN. Result: fail.Lower
- Aug 30In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
- Aug 30Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 43. Noes 20. Page 6891.) Ordered to the Senate.Passed Assembly
- Aug 17Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 17Read third time and amended.Major
- Aug 17Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- Aug 13Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Aug 13From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (August 13).Major
- Aug 13Assembly Rule 63 suspended.
- Aug 5August 5 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
- Jun 25Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Jun 24From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 23).Major
- Jun 23
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Lower
- Jun 4Referred to Com. on PUB. S.Minor
- May 27In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.Minor
- Vote recorded 3rd Reading SB1009 Becker et al. Result: pass.Upper
- May 27Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 27. Noes 9. Page 4498.) Ordered to the Assembly.Passed Senate
- May 18Read second time. Ordered to third reading.Minor
- May 14Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended. Result: pass.Upper
- May 14From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 4260.) (May 14).Major
- May 8Set for hearing May 14.
- Apr 13April 13 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
- Vote recorded Placed on suspense file. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 10Set for hearing April 13.
- Apr 7From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Mar 18Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.Major
- Mar 17From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 3590.) (March 17).Major
- Vote recorded Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 3Set for hearing March 17.
- Feb 18Referred to Com. on PUB. S.Minor
- Feb 11From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 13.
- Feb 10Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.Introduced
Criminal Justice