Counties with Protocols
The chart below provides protocols for counties who have implemented them.
County | Effective Date |
Butte | March 22, 2011 |
Colusa |
March 23, 2006 |
Contra Costa | November 03, 2023 |
Del Norte Del Norte (Updated) |
March 18, 2010 - June 30, 2011 November 03, 2023 November 03, 2023 |
Glenn Glenn (Amended) |
November 03, 2023 |
Inyo | December 13, 2005 |
Los Angeles | October 11, 2011 |
Marin | November 03, 2023 |
Modoc | April 4, 2008 |
Mono | July 31, 2013 |
Orange | November 7, 2014 |
Placer | December 14, 2005 |
Riverside | October 5, 2005 |
San Bernardino San Bernardino (Updated) |
November 30, 2011 December 27, 2012 November 03, 2023 |
San Diego San Diego (Updated) |
August 25, 2015 November 03, 2023 |
San Francisco | November 03, 2023 |
San Joaquin | December 19, 2005 |
San Mateo San Mateo (Updated) |
April 13, 2007 May 1, 2015 |
Santa Barbara | November 03, 2023 |
Santa Clara Santa Clara (Updated) Santa Clara (Updated) |
February 11, 2010 May 4, 2015 November 03, 2023 |
Santa Cruz Santa Cruz (Updated) |
June 2017 November 03, 2023 |
Siskiyou | February 13, 2008 |
Sonoma Sonoma (Updated) |
September 7, 2006 November 03, 2023 |
Stanislaus Stanislaus (Updated) |
December 23, 2005 |
Tulare | November 03, 2023 |
Tuolumne | November 03, 2023 |
See a Summary of Protocols by County (November 2023)
AB 129 Resources
All County Information Notice No. I-05-06: Dual Status Children (California Department of Social Services)
Dual-Status Children: Protocols for Implementing Assembly Bill 129 – A Report to the California Legislature (2004)
Assembly Bill 129 allowed counties to develop a local protocol to designate certain children as having dual status, i.e., being both a dependent child and a ward of the juvenile court. AB 129 required the Judicial Council to evaluate the implementation of these protocols and to report its findings to the Legislature within two years of the date that participating counties first deem a child to be a dual-status child. The report addresses the following questions:
- How many counties adopted a dual-status protocol? Why did some counties elect to adopt a protocol, while some did not?
- What are the key features of dual-status protocols?
- What did the process of developing a dual-status protocol entail?
- Which aspects of developing and implementing a protocol were successful, and which were more challenging? What facilitated the successes, and what would help overcome the challenges?
- What would help the county teams optimize the implementation of their dual-status protocols moving forward?
Research Update: Dual-Status Children: Protocols for Implementing Assembly Bill 129 (October 2008)