Invitations to Comment

(There are no items in this category.)

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration (PDF, 225 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-01
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal would amend the Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration in response to recent appellate court decisions concerning these standards and suggestions received from attorneys, arbitrators, and others. Among other things, these amendments would: (1) codify the holdings in cases on the inapplicability of the standards to arbitrators in securities arbitrations and on the time for disclosures when an arbitrator is appointed by the court; (2) require new disclosures about financial relationships between an administering arbitration provider and a party or attorney in the arbitration and about any disciplinary action taken against an arbitrator by a professional licensing agency; (3) clarify required disclosures about associations in the private practice of law and other professional relationships between an arbitrator’s spouse or domestic partner and a lawyer in the arbitration; (4) require arbitrators in consumer arbitrations to obtain the consent of the parties in a pending arbitration before accepting an offer or employment from a party or attorney for a party in that arbitration and (5) prohibit arbitrators from soliciting a particular case or caseload for themselves or for a closed panel of which they are a member.

Appellate Procedure: Appellate Division Rules and Forms (PDF, 1201 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-02
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to provide costs savings and efficiencies for trial courts and for litigants by, among other things: (1) setting a time frame for the court to decide whether to grant applications for appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in misdemeanor appeals; (2) clarifying the trial court’s authority to adopt local rules establishing procedures to determine whether a full verbatim transcript is necessary in misdemeanor and infraction appeals; (3) expanding the options when an appellant in a misdemeanor and infraction case learns of the cost for a record of the oral proceedings or that he or she must pay this cost; (4) adding a rule to address defaults in procurement of the record in misdemeanor and infraction appeals; (5) providing that only the appellate division can grant an extension of the time to prepare a transcript in an appeal to the appellate division; and (6) specifically permitting the trial court judge to order the appellant to incorporate corrections or modifications into a statement on appeal. This proposal originated from suggestions made by superior court judges serving in the appellate division, trial court administrators and staff attorneys, a county bar association, an attorney in a public defender’s office, and other attorneys.

Appellate Court Procedure: Defaults in Procuring Record and Completion of the Record in Civil Appeals (PDF, 104 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-04
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

To reduce defaults in the procurement of the record on appeal and reduce costs for superior courts associated with unnecessary preparation of clerk’s transcripts, this proposal would make several changes in the rules relating to preparation of clerk’s transcripts and relating to defaults in procuring the record in civil appeals. This proposal is based on a suggestion from a Court of Appeal justice and staff attorney.

Appellate Procedure: Civil Case Information Statement (PDF, 69 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-03
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to provide costs savings and efficiencies for the Court of Appeal by relieving the clerk of responsibility for mailing the appellant a copy of the Civil Case Information Statement (form APP-004) and decreasing the number of default notices that the clerk must issue by increasing the time the appellant has to file the statement after receiving notice from the clerk that the statement is due.

Appellate Procedure: Number of Copies of Filed Documents (PDF, 86 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-05
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal for amendments to the rules on appellate procedure is intended to provide costs savings and efficiencies for litigants and for reviewing courts by decreasing the number of copies of some documents that must be filed in the Supreme Court when an electronic copy of a document is filed, specifically providing that reviewing courts may adopt local rules providing for submission of electronic copies in lieu of some or all of the paper copies of filed documents, and making other changes.

Appellate Procedure: Preparation of Transcripts in Felony and Juvenile Appeals (PDF, 80 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-06
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to improve the administration of justice in appellate proceedings in felony and juvenile cases by alerting parties and the court that they may request a copy of the reporter’s transcript in computer-readable format. It also seeks input on the helpfulness of the current requirement in these cases for court reporter’s to obtain the certification of the presiding judge or his or her designee for extensions of the time to prepare a reporter’s transcript.

Appellate Procedure: Reporter’s Transcripts in Civil Appeals (PDF, 194 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-07
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to generate revenue for trial courts and provide costs savings and efficiencies for trial courts and for litigants by establishing a fee to cover trial court costs associated with administering trust accounts for payment of reporter’s transcript costs in civil appeals, establishing a lower deposit amount for reporter’s transcripts of proceedings that have already been transcribed, allowing the submission of certified transcripts in lieu of a deposit for a reporter’s transcript only when the certified transcripts contain all of the designated proceedings and are in the required format for reporter’s transcripts, and making other changes to the rules relating to reporter’s transcripts in civil appeals.

Appellate Procedure: Sealed Records (PDF, 262 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-08
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to improve the administration of justice in appellate court proceedings by clarifying and filling gaps in the procedures relating to records sealed by court order or records that, by law, are closed to inspection in court proceedings. It would, among other things, establish and use consistent terminology in the appellate rules for records closed to inspection; consolidate provisions on the format, transmission of, and access to these records; add provisions addressing records that are closed to inspection by operation of law in civil appeals and writ proceedings; and establish procedures for preventing the disclosure of material from these records in briefs, petitions, and other filings.

Appellate Procedure: Signatures on Filed Documents (PDF, 77 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-09
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is intended to provide costs savings and efficiencies for litigants and for reviewing courts by making it easier to electronically file some documents in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and to use copies of signatures in some circumstances.

Appellate Procedure: Writ Proceedings (PDF, 107 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-10
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal would make a number of clarifying changes to the rules relating to writ proceedings that are intended to improve the administration in those proceedings in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and the superior court appellate division, including: (1) clarifying when the appellate projects must be served with a return in a habeas corpus proceeding; (2) clarifying that the rules on proceedings for writs of mandate, certiorari, and prohibition do not apply to proceedings for writs under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 366.26 and 366.28 or for writs under rules 8.450–8.456; (3) clarifying the finality of orders dismissing a writ petition and when remittitur must issue; and (4) modifying rule provisions that refer just to attorneys or unnecessarily refer separately to attorneys and self-represented parties.

Juvenile Law: Psychotropic Medications (PDF, 160 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-18
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed revisions to rule 5.640 and related forms regarding the administration of psychotropic medication would address two distinct issues. First, to clarify the time frame in rule 5.640(c)(8) for filing an opposition to an application for the juvenile court to authorize the administration of psychotropic medication. This recommendation is based on a 2012 Court of Appeal opinion that called upon the Judicial Council to consider amending this provision to tie the due date for filing the opposition to the date of service—rather than the date of receipt—of the application to authorize administration of psychotropic medication. Second, to add notice requirements for tribes if psychotropic medication is being sought for an Indian child. This recommendation is based on a request by the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum (forum). The proposal would also require notice to both an intervening tribe and a tribe that has not intervened but has acknowledged the child as a member of, or eligible for membership in, the tribe.

Family Law: New Rule for Title IV-D Case Transfers to Tribal Court (PDF, 112 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-17
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed new California rule of court would provide a consistent procedure for the discretionary transfer of title IV-D child support cases from the state superior courts to tribal courts when there is concurrent jurisdiction over the matter in controversy. This proposal was initiated as a result of meetings between the Yurok Tribe, federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). Subsequently, the proposal for a rule of court for transferring title IV-D proceedings between state and tribal courts was adopted as part of the annual agenda for both the California Tribal Court/Sate Court Forum and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee.

Proposed Legislation: Tribal Access to Confidential Juvenile Court Files (PDF, 80 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-03
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

As a result of comments from tribal court judges and advocates, the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum (forum) and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee (advisory committee) have considered and recommend amendments to section 827 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to address the issue of tribal access to confidential juvenile court files involving tribal children. The proposed legislation seeks to ensure tribal access to juvenile court files involving tribal children consistent with the mandates of existing federal and state law. Although both federal and state law mandate notice to tribes of all juvenile dependency and some juvenile delinquency matters involving tribal children and provide tribes with the right to participate in these proceedings, currently section 827 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, which governs access to confidential juvenile court files, does not mention tribes.

Court Administration: Repeal Rules Mandating Use of Recycled Paper (PDF, 101 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-13
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal would eliminate all California Rules of Court mandating use of recycled paper–those rules addressed to courts as well as those addressed to parties. The statutory mandate that courts ensure at least 50 percent of reportable purchases, including paper products, are recycled products would remain in effect. This proposal was originally recommended by the Court Executives Advisory Committee, at the request of the Superior Court of Orange County, as one of the suggestions that the committee submitted to the Rules and Project Committee of the Judicial Council to achieve cost savings and efficiencies.

Civil Practice and Procedure: Clerk’s Addition of Interest to Judgments (PDF, 70 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-12
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal would amend rule 3.1802, which currently provides that a clerk must include in a judgment any interest awarded by a court and the interest accrued since the entry of the verdict. The proposal deletes the latter provision because it is ambiguous in light of Code of Civil Procedure section 685.020 (interest commences to accrue on a judgment from date of entry of judgment).

Civil Practice and Procedure: Discovery Motions (PDF, 72 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-11
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal would streamline the separate statement required for discovery motions. California Rules of Court, rule 3.1345, requires that most discovery motions contain a separate statement that includes, among other things, “[a] statement of the factual and legal reasons for compelling further responses, answers, or production as to each matter in dispute.” Because the rule also prohibits any incorporation of material by reference, it often results in separate statements that contain duplicative and repetitive content, with the same legal and factual arguments repeated for multiple discovery requests. This proposal, which was developed at the suggestion of a member of the advisory committee, would eliminate unnecessary repetitiveness, resulting in shorter and more concise motion papers for parties and courts to review.

Civil Practice and Procedure: Telephonic Appearances (PDF, 111 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-14
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The ability of parties and attorneys to appear by telephone at hearings and conferences in civil cases has increased access to the courts and reduced litigation costs. This proposal would amend rule 3.670 to clarify that the hearings, conferences, and proceedings at which a party may appear by telephone include all law and motion matters, to add ex parte applications to the types of proceedings at which a party may appear by telephone, and to clarify that a court should grant leave to appear by telephone on shortened notice if good cause exists. Rule 3.1207 (regarding ex parte appearances generally) and rule 5.324 (regarding telephonic appearances in certain child support proceedings) would also be amended to reflect the changes in the telephonic appearance rule.

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

Criminal Justice Realignment: Warrants for Supervised Persons (PDF, 72 KB)
Item Number: SP13-04
Deadline for Comments: May 23, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Criminal Law Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of Warrant Request and Order Form (form CR-301) and Request and Order to Recall Warrant (form CR-302), for use by supervising agencies and courts to request, order, and recall warrants for the arrest of persons supervised on parole and postrelease community supervision. The forms are proposed for optional use and designed to facilitate the implementation of recent criminal justice realignment legislation that transferred sole authority to order warrants for the arrest of persons supervised on parole and postrelease community supervision from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to the courts.

Juvenile Law and Criminal Law: Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (PDF, 392 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-29
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposal would split Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (form CR-110/JV-790) into two separate forms, one for the order for restitution and one for the abstract of judgment. This proposal originated from the Court Executives Advisory Committee (CEAC). A court executive suggested separating the forms to improve case management and court efficiency and to reflect the way the forms are actually used. The proposed change would also require splitting the related information form, Instructions: Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (form CR-112/JV-792), into separate forms for the order and for the abstract of judgment.

Criminal Cases: Encouraging Local Mental Health Protocols and Adding Stakeholders to Currently Mandated Meetings (PDF, 99 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-16
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force (MHIITF) is proposing two rule amendments to address recommendations from the final report of the Task Force for Criminal Justice Collaboration on Mental Health Issues. The MHIITF proposes amending rule 10.951 to add a subsection to encourage courts to develop mental health case protocols. The task force also proposes amending rule 10.952 to include additional justice system stakeholders in the already mandated meetings concerning the criminal court system. These proposals are designed to encourage judicial leadership in facilitating an interbranch and interagency coordinated response to people with mental illness who have entered the criminal justice system, and to improve case processing and outcomes for defendants with mental illness or co-occurring disorders.

Proposed Legislation: Criminal Procedure: Intercounty Probation Case Transfers (PDF, 62 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-01
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Penal Code section 1203.9 would be amended to prohibit the intercounty transfer of misdemeanor cases and require transferring courts to determine the amount of any restitution owed by the probationer before transferring the case. The proposal was developed at the request of numerous criminal judges who expressed concerns that (a) receiving courts are often unable to determine victim restitution amounts because most of the information needed for the determination is not accessible in the receiving county, and (b) some probationers go unsupervised after transfer because some county probation departments do not supervise misdemeanor probationers.

Proposed Legislation: Criminal Procedure: Misdemeanor Contempt by Jurors (PDF, 62 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-02
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Penal Code section 166 would be amended to delete a category of juror misconduct that constitutes misdemeanor contempt of court—the willful disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment against any communication or research about a pending trial, including electronic or wireless communications. The proposal was developed at the request of numerous criminal judges who expressed concerns that the provision inadvertently impairs the ability of courts to investigate whether juror misconduct occurred, increasing the risk of mistrial and reversal on appeal.

Criminal Procedure: Petition and Order for Dismissal (PDF, 131 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-15
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed revisions would delete certain personal identifying information, add an advisement to the order form to clarify that dismissals generally do not relieve petitioners of requirements to register as a sex offender, add a check box to the petition to apply the forms to infractions, and incorporate an additional statutory basis for dismissal. Several revisions to the format, advisements, and instructions on both forms to reduce confusion and update and enhance the information on the forms are also proposed.

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

Family Law: Revisions to Family Law Summons (PDF, 77 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-34
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee proposes revisions to form FL-110, Summons-Family Law. The changes address the requirements of Assembly Bill 792 (Stats. 2011.ch.851), which, effective January 1, 2014, requires courts to provide a notice upon filing of a petition for divorce, legal separation or annulment, or a petition for adoption, informing the petitioner and respondent that they may be eligible for reduced or no-cost insurance coverage through the California Benefit Exchange (Exchange) or no-cost coverage through Medi-Cal. The changes further respond to SB 1206, which requires that the standard restraining orders in a summons for dissolution, legal separation or annulment include a notice informing the parties that they are restrained from applying for a new or replacement passport for the minor child or children of the parties without the prior written consent of the other party or an order of the court.

Family Law: Approval of New Form Declaration of Supervised Visitation Provider (PDF, 96 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-19
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Because of new legislation affecting the training and qualifications of supervised visitation providers, a new optional form is proposed. Effective January 1, 2013, Assembly Bill 1674 added section 3200.5 to the Family Code. Family Code section 3200.5(d)(2) requires the professional provider of supervised visitation to sign a declaration indicating that they meet the training and qualifications requirements as set forth in Family Code sections 3200.5(c)(2), (d)(1), and (d)(2). Family Code section 3200.5(c)(1) also sets forth qualifications for a nonprofessional provider of supervised visitation. Although Family Code section 3200.5 does not specifically require the Judicial Council to develop a form for this purpose, there is no current Judicial Council form declaration that incorporates the new requirements of Family Code section 3200.5 and a number of courts have suggested that a form be developed.

Family Law: Clarification of Rules Regarding Service and Posting of a Summons and Forms of Pleading (PDF, 86 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-20
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The restructuring of Title V of the California Rules of Court (known as the Family Rules) became effective January 1, 2013. Since the implementation of the new and revised rules, court personnel have suggested that changes to some rules are necessary to clarify their meaning. Specific amendments to rule 5.68 (Manner of service of summons and petition; response; jurisdiction), rule 5.72 (Court order for service by publication or posting when respondent’s address is unknown, and rule 5.74 (Pleadings and amended pleadings) are included in this proposal.

Family Law: Ex Parte Application to Terminate Earnings Assignment Order (PDF, 82 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-21
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Form FL-430 would be revised to comply with Assembly Bill 1727 (Stats. 2012, ch. 77), which amended Family Code section 5240 to permit a support obligor to seek ex parte relief to terminate an earnings assignment order under specified circumstances.

Family Law: Improvements to Request for Order Rules and Forms (PDF, 346 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-22
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The rules and forms in this proposal are among the new amended and restructured family rules of court that became effective January 1, 2013. Form FL-300 combined elements of motions (formerly filed using Notice of Motion (form FL-301)) with orders to show cause (formerly filed using Order to Show Cause (form FL-300)) so that one form is used for both purposes. Since its implementation, judicial officers, court clerks, and attorneys have identified changes to make the form easier for litigants to understand and complete and easier for court clerks to process. In addition to including their suggestions in this proposal, technical changes are proposed to the few current forms that continue to reference form FL-300 as an order to show cause and form FL-301. Changes are also proposed to rule 5.94 and associated form FL-306 to respond to issues raised by family and juvenile court personnel.

Family Law: New Rule for Title IV-D Case Transfers to Tribal Court (PDF, 112 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-17
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed new California rule of court would provide a consistent procedure for the discretionary transfer of title IV-D child support cases from the state superior courts to tribal courts when there is concurrent jurisdiction over the matter in controversy. This proposal was initiated as a result of meetings between the Yurok Tribe, federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, and the California Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). Subsequently, the proposal for a rule of court for transferring title IV-D proceedings between state and tribal courts was adopted as part of the annual agenda for both the California Tribal Court/Sate Court Forum and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee.

Juvenile Dependency: Revoke Information Forms to be Replaced by Information Pamphlets (PDF, 1050 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-23
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

There are currently two Judicial Council forms that provide basic information to parents about the dependency court process. This proposal would revoke these forms and instead make information available to parents through a variety of more effective means, including an orientation video, a more comprehensive pamphlet, and additional informational materials to be developed as needed, all of which could be made available at court locations and online. This change will provide parents with more accurate and up-to-date information about the dependency process while relieving courts of the expense of copying the existing forms.

Juvenile Law: Access to Services for Children, Nonminors, and Nonminor Dependents (PDF, 710 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-24
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposal would revise several rules and forms to conform to recent legislation that amended many sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the Education Code, and the Government Code to promote access to educational, developmental, and other legally mandated services for children and nonminors who are the subject of juvenile court proceedings and to ensure that all children and nonminors in foster care are able to maintain connections to relatives and other adults important to them. The proposed changes would also simplify language and procedures, correct technical or grammatical errors, and improve consistency within and among the rules.

Juvenile Law: Extended Foster Care (PDF, 688 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-25
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposal would implement Assembly Bill 1712 (Beall; Stats. 2012, ch. 846) and provide further guidance and procedures to fully implement earlier legislation regarding the extension of juvenile court jurisdiction and foster care services to dependents and wards up to 21 years of age. The recommended changes include new and amended rules and forms necessary to implement the provisions of Assembly Bill 1712 that relate to court procedures. The recommended changes also include new rules and optional forms to provide guidance and tools for certain extended foster care hearings for which courts, social service agencies, and probation departments have frequently requested assistance from AOC staff.  Additionally, Assembly Bill 787, which is currently pending in the Legislature, would make further amendments to the act, with an expected effective date of January 1, 2014. This proposal includes amendments to rules and forms to implement certain provisions of AB 787 so that the rules and forms will be current when they become effective January 1, 2014. If AB 787 is not signed into law, the proposed amendments relating to that bill will be removed.

Juvenile Law: Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Regulation Changes (PDF, 102 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-26
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The interstate agreement known as the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, or ICPC, governs the placement of California children in other states, as well as the placement of out-of-state children in California. The national regulations implementing the ICPC have been repeatedly updated over the last three years. Most recently, they were amended effective October 1, 2012. The California Rule of Court and Judicial Council forms regarding ICPC were extensively revised last year to be consistent with 2010 and 2011 changes to the ICPC regulations. Now, additional, minor changes are needed to rule 5.616 to bring the rule into compliance with the 2012 regulatory changes.

Juvenile Law: Minor Changes for Statutory Compliance (PDF, 103 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-27
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Legislation enacted in 2012 requires changes to various juvenile law-related rules of court to ensure that the rules accurately and comprehensively reflect the current state of the law. Assembly Bill 324 (Stats. 2012, ch. 7) clarified which juvenile offenders can be committed by the juvenile court to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF), by specifically including wards adjudicated delinquent for sex offenses subject to registration. The rule governing commitments to DJF (rule 5.805) must be updated to reflect this change.

Juvenile Law: Psychotropic Medications (PDF, 160 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-18
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed revisions to rule 5.640 and related forms regarding the administration of psychotropic medication would address two distinct issues. First, to clarify the time frame in rule 5.640(c)(8) for filing an opposition to an application for the juvenile court to authorize the administration of psychotropic medication. This recommendation is based on a 2012 Court of Appeal opinion that called upon the Judicial Council to consider amending this provision to tie the due date for filing the opposition to the date of service—rather than the date of receipt—of the application to authorize administration of psychotropic medication. Second, to add notice requirements for tribes if psychotropic medication is being sought for an Indian child. This recommendation is based on a request by the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum (forum). The proposal would also require notice to both an intervening tribe and a tribe that has not intervened but has acknowledged the child as a member of, or eligible for membership in, the tribe.

Juvenile Law: Restraining Orders (PDF, 274 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-28
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The recommended changes would harmonize and coordinate the juvenile forms with the current Civil Harassment Prevention (CH), Domestic Violence Prevention (DV), Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Prevention (EA), School Violence Prevention (SV), and Workplace Violence Prevention (WV) forms. The recommended changes would also eliminate deficiencies of the current Restraining Order—Juvenile (form JV-250).

Juvenile Law and Criminal Law: Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (PDF, 392 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-29
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposal would split Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (form CR-110/JV-790) into two separate forms, one for the order for restitution and one for the abstract of judgment. This proposal originated from the Court Executives Advisory Committee (CEAC). A court executive suggested separating the forms to improve case management and court efficiency and to reflect the way the forms are actually used. The proposed change would also require splitting the related information form, Instructions: Order for Restitution and Abstract of Judgment (form CR-112/JV-792), into separate forms for the order and for the abstract of judgment.

Subordinate Judicial Officers: Complaints and Notice Requirements (PDF, 115 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-31
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee proposes amendments to rule 10.703 of the California Rules of Court that would (1) simplify the procedures a presiding judge must follow while reviewing and investigating complaints against subordinate judicial officers (SJOs); (2) clarify a presiding judge’s authority in conducting an investigation and determining the appropriate action to be taken; and (3) clarify the circumstances under which discipline against an SJO must be reported to the Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP).

Attorney Misconduct: Notification to State Bar (PDF, 73 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-30
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (CCFAJ) suggested that the Judicial Council adopt a rule of court addressing court compliance with a statutory mandate to notify the State Bar of instances of misconduct by and incompetence of prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers. The Administrative Presiding Justices Advisory Committee and the Trial Court Presiding Judges Advisory Committee propose separate rules of court to address the reporting responsibilities of appellate justices (rule 10.1017) and superior court judges (rule 10.609). The rules specify who must report misconduct under certain circumstances.

Proposed Legislation: Criminal Procedure: Intercounty Probation Case Transfers (PDF, 62 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-01
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Penal Code section 1203.9 would be amended to prohibit the intercounty transfer of misdemeanor cases and require transferring courts to determine the amount of any restitution owed by the probationer before transferring the case. The proposal was developed at the request of numerous criminal judges who expressed concerns that (a) receiving courts are often unable to determine victim restitution amounts because most of the information needed for the determination is not accessible in the receiving county, and (b) some probationers go unsupervised after transfer because some county probation departments do not supervise misdemeanor probationers.

Proposed Legislation: Criminal Procedure: Misdemeanor Contempt by Jurors (PDF, 62 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-02
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

Penal Code section 166 would be amended to delete a category of juror misconduct that constitutes misdemeanor contempt of court—the willful disobedience by a juror of a court admonishment against any communication or research about a pending trial, including electronic or wireless communications. The proposal was developed at the request of numerous criminal judges who expressed concerns that the provision inadvertently impairs the ability of courts to investigate whether juror misconduct occurred, increasing the risk of mistrial and reversal on appeal.

Proposed Legislation: Tribal Access to Confidential Juvenile Court Files (PDF, 80 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-03
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

As a result of comments from tribal court judges and advocates, the California Tribal Court/State Court Forum (forum) and the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee (advisory committee) have considered and recommend amendments to section 827 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to address the issue of tribal access to confidential juvenile court files involving tribal children. The proposed legislation seeks to ensure tribal access to juvenile court files involving tribal children consistent with the mandates of existing federal and state law. Although both federal and state law mandate notice to tribes of all juvenile dependency and some juvenile delinquency matters involving tribal children and provide tribes with the right to participate in these proceedings, currently section 827 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, which governs access to confidential juvenile court files, does not mention tribes.

Proposed Legislation: Conservatorship for Gravely Disabled Persons: Conservatorship Investigator Report (PDF, 63 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-04
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force proposes that the Judicial Council sponsor legislation to add a new subdivision to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5354. The new subdivision would require that ifa criminal court with jurisdiction over a defendant in a criminal case orders an evaluation of a person’s mental condition pursuant to section 5200, and that referral leads to a conservatorship investigation, the officer providing investigation must submit a copy of the report to the criminal court. This legislation would increase the options available to courts when handling criminal cases involving mentally ill offenders, and improve coordination between the conservatorship court and the criminal court when a mentally ill individual has cases in both arenas.

Proposed Legislation: Joinder of Probation in Mental Health Cases (PDF, 68 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-05
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force proposes that the Judicial Council sponsor legislation to add a new section to the Penal Code that would enable judicial officers to make specific orders about the care, supervision, custody, conduct, maintenance, and support of mentally ill offenders on probation, under mandatory supervision, or placed on postrelease community supervision. The legislation would also give the court the ability to join to the criminal proceeding any agency or private sector service provider that the court determines has failed to meet a legal obligation to provide services to the offender. This legislation would increase the options available to the court when handling criminal cases involving mentally ill offenders and improve service provider accountability in instances where that is an issue.

Proposed Legislation: Outpatient Status for Mentally Disordered and Developmentally Disabled Offenders (PDF, 114 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-06
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The Mental Health Issues Implementation Task Force proposes that the Judicial Council sponsor legislation to amend Penal Code sections 1601(a), 1602(a) and 1603(a) pertaining to outpatient status for mentally disordered and developmentally disabled offenders. The amendment to section 1601(a) would allow the court to conditionally release a defendant found incompetent to stand trial to the community, where appropriate, to receive mental health treatment with supervision, rather than in a custodial or hospital setting, until competency is restored, if the court finds an alternative placement would provide more appropriate treatment for the defendant and would not pose a danger to the health and safety of others. The amendments to sections 1602(a) and 1603(a) would require the court to consider all of the listed criteria before placing an offender who is subject to section 1601(a) or (b) on outpatient status, rather than require the court to ensure that all of the conditions have been met.

Provisional Qualification for American Sign Language Court Interpreters and Other Updates to Evidence Code Section 754 (PDF, 83 KB)
Item Number: LEG13-07
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

This proposal is for Judicial Council-sponsored legislation that would authorize courts to provisionally qualify American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters when a certified court interpreter is not available. This will bring the provision of ASL interpreters in line with existing law related to spoken language interpreting and codify the process for a court that cannot locate a certified court interpreter. This proposal stems from court needs related to the scarcity of court-certified ASL interpreters and the difficult circumstances of having no alternative to a certified interpreter. Courts have requested assistance related to provisional qualification for ASL interpreters. In late 2010, the California Law Revision Commission separately requested a review by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) of Evidence Code section 754 to consider specific changes required by the unification of the California court system. When AOC Court Interpreter Program staff reviewed the statute, together with the Court Interpreter Advisory Panel’s (CIAP) ASL committee member, they identified a number of outdated usages of language and sections in need of improvement.

(There are no items in this category.)

Military Service: Optional Form for Notification of a Party’s Military Status (PDF, 80 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-32
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

The proposed new optional form would be used to inform the court that a party in a criminal or juvenile dependency court case is in the military. Knowledge of a party’s status as a current or former member of the armed services or reserves will enable courts to address any legal issues for which military status is relevant and to better administer justice. It will also help courts comply with the sentencing requirements of Penal Code section 1170.9 and make it easier to identify when outside resources are available to military and former military court users. This proposal is responsive to Assembly Bill 2371 and a request to the Administrative Office of the Courts to amend Judicial Council forms to allow identification of court litigants who have a military affiliation.

Probate Guardianship: Eligibility of a Ward for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Under Federal Immigration Law (PDF, 107 KB)
Item Number: SPR13-33
Deadline for Comments: June 19, 2013 5:00 PM (Pacific)
Submit Comment Online Or, email: invitations@jud.ca.gov

In response to a referral from the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee and a 2012 decision of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, the Probate and Mental Health Advisory Committee proposes the adoption of a new mandatory Judicial Council form. The Order Regarding Eligibility for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status—Probate Guardianship (GC-224), when signed by a judicial officer presiding in a California probate guardianship case, would make findings that are necessary to support the application of an immigrant ward for special immigration juvenile status (SIJS) under federal law. That status would entitle the ward to permanent lawful residence in the United States and eligibility to apply for citizenship in the future.

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)

(There are no items in this category.)