School employees: child abuse: reporting.
Summary
Existing law requires the State Office of Child Abuse Prevention to develop and disseminate information to all school districts and district school personnel regarding the detection of child abuse. Existing law, the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, designates certain persons, including teachers, as mandated reporters. Existing law requires a mandated reporter to make a report if the person has knowledge of or observes a child whom the person knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. Existing law also provides that the California School for the Blind and the California School for the Deaf are under the administration of the State Department of Education. This bill would require the governing board of each school district and county office of education, the governing body of each charter school, and, for purposes of the California School for the Blind and the California School for the Deaf, the department, to adopt a policy on the reporting of child abuse and the responsibilities of mandated reporters. The bill would require each school district, charter school, and county office of education, the California School for the Blind, and the California School for the Deaf to, at minimum, review the mandated reporting requirements of school employees with all school personnel within the first 6 weeks of each school year, at a regularly scheduled staff meeting. By expanding the duty of school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Jan 2013
Committee Review
Aug 2014
Assembly Passage
Jan 2014
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Jan 16, 2013
Last action Nov 30, 2014
Floor votes · Assembly Jan 27, 2014
How they voted
63–0
Passed · 3 other
Total votes 66
Jan 27, 2014
D
Democratic45
97% Yea
R
Republican21
90% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
18
Key actions
8
Committee
10
Amendments
2
Aug 14, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Jun 23, 2014
Upper · Passed
In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
upper
May 21, 2014
Upper · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 20, 2014
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (May 14).
upper
Feb 6, 2014
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
upper
Jan 27, 2014
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (63-0-3)
assembly
Jan 23, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (January 23).
lower
Jan 23, 2014
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Jan 16, 2014
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: to consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (January 15). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jan 7, 2014
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Jan 6, 2014
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on ED. Read second time and amended.
lower
Jan 24, 2013
Committee
Referred to Com. on ED.
lower
Jan 17, 2013
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee February 16.
lower
1 primary · 6 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 135
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 135. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline