SAN FRANCISCO—The Judicial Council at its December 12 business meeting approved recommendations from a study on how to expand access to the pool of court interpreters able to assist the state’s nearly 6.4 million limited-English-proficient (LEP) residents and potential court users.
Study considerations for the council include reviewing interpreter examination standards and content, adopting carryover scoring to aid candidates, and creating structured career pathways—including tiered systems and apprenticeship programs, particularly for Spanish interpreters. The study also advises that the council work with courts to develop a statewide directory for interpreters trained in video remote interpreting and continue expanding access to American Sign Language (ASL) and emerging languages.
“There was broad agreement among the stakeholders for the recommendations and considerations,” said Court Executive Officer Anabel Romero, vice-chair of the council’s Court Interpreters Advisory Panel. “The study offers a roadmap for the branch to improve interpreter services for the public and to ensure our goals of high-quality equitable access for all Californians, regardless of the language they speak.”
The study also calls for action by the Legislature, courts, and experienced court interpreters, which includes recommendations to continue adequately funding interpreter services, review and improve compensation packages, and develop mentorship programs.
Funding for Children’s Waiting Rooms
The council approved children’s waiting room fund balance cap adjustments requested by superior courts, which will allow them to continue planned operations and expansion of their children’s waiting rooms. The state encourages each courthouse to provide a waiting room for children whose parents or guardians are attending court proceedings. The waiting rooms offer professional childcare and activities, and protect children from the stress and potential trauma of courtroom environments.
The Children’s Waiting Room (CWR) Distribution and Fund Balance Policy sets a cap on how much money each court may retain in its CWR fund. If a court’s balance exceeds this cap, the excess must be returned to the Trial Court Trust Fund for the benefit of courts statewide, unless the council approves a request from the court to increase the cap.
For today’s meeting, the council received requests from five superior courts to increase their caps to cover costs related to maintenance and expansion of their children’s waiting rooms. By approving the requests, courts can retain this funding to support their waiting rooms.
“This funding apparatus is a splendid example of the Judicial Council’s transparency in this aspect of our funding but also how efficiently we’re using this money,” said Judge Ann Moorman, chair of the council’s Judicial Branch Budget Committee. “Because of the biannual review that occurs, trial courts have to evaluate how much they need and how they use it, and then turn it back when they don’t use it. We can then support these five courts—Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, and Santa Clara—with their expanded financial needs using the same money that’s been allocated.”
Other Items on Council Meeting Agenda:
Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules: The council adopted the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedules, 2026 Edition: Traffic, Boating, Forestry, Fish and Game, Public Utilities, Parks and Recreation, Business Licensing (UBPS). The UBPS includes schedules for traffic infractions, traffic misdemeanors, boating, forestry, fish and game, public utilities, parks and recreation, and business licensing. With specified exceptions, the traffic infraction schedule must be followed by the courts. On an annual basis, trial courts must also revise and adopt countywide schedules of bail and penalties for all misdemeanor and infraction offenses except Vehicle Code infractions. To achieve substantial uniformity of penalties throughout the state, courts must consider the UBPS in performing those duties. Changes to the annual schedules are primarily based on legislative changes but can also result from input by courts and justice system partners.
Trial Court Trust Funds: The council approved requests from trial courts under a program that allows them to request that a reduction in their Trial Court Trust Fund allocations be retained as a restricted fund balance for the benefit of those courts. The funds are then allocated back to the courts by the council for only the purposes stated in their approved requests, which can include projects related to technology infrastructure and upgrades, new audio and visual equipment, and courthouse maintenance and repairs. A report on this project funding is made publicly available on the California courts public website.
Legislative Priorities: The council approved the types of legislation it should support to increase access to justice for court users, which includes: adequate court funding to address increased costs; remote access to the courts while balancing due process; new judicial officer positions in counties with the greatest need; ensuring the availability of verbatim records of court proceedings; efficient court operations; and increased security to safeguard personnel, the public, and court systems from physical and cyber threats.
The complete meeting agenda and council reports are posted to the California Courts Meeting Information Center—an archived webcast of today’s meeting will be posted to the center as soon as it is available.
