.
Feedback

Leno-Authored Bills Clear Hurdle

One is about protecting consumers from unfair debt collection, the other protects children in the court system who have parent-child relationships with more than two people.

 

Two bills authored by Sen. Mark Leno, who represents Marin in the state Senate, moved them one step closer to a vote on the Assembly floor by passing the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

The legislation includes SB 890, which creates significant new consumer protections against unfair debt collection practices, and SB 1476, which modernizes state law to protect children who have parent-child relationships with more than two people.

SB 890 – Fair Debt Buyers Protection Act: Sponsored by Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, SB 890 protects consumers against unfair debt collection practices. It ensures that debt buyers substantiate the validity of a debt before they collect and requires that they direct their collection efforts at the proper debtor for the right amount. The bill also ends lawsuits on uncollected debts that are barred by an applicable statute of limitations.

“This legislation provides critical consumer protections against debt buyers who use aggressive and abusive tactics to collect funds when they cannot even prove they are targeting the right consumer for the correct amount,” Leno, D-San Francisco, said in a release. “We have worked with the debt collector and debt buyer trade associations to come up with a practical bill that significantly improves the way consumers are treated by representatives from the ever-growing debt collection industry.”

SB 1476 – Parent-Child Relationships: SB 1476 allows a court to recognize parent-child relationships based on the evidence and the best interests of the child. It modernizes state law by giving courts the flexibility to protect children who have parent-child relationships with more than two people.

SB 1476 does not change existing law that sets the high standard for being a legal parent. It simply clarifies a judge’s ability to decide that when more than two parents satisfy the standard, the court is allowed to recognize them as the child’s legal parents. It could apply in appropriate circumstances where more than two parents have brought the child into their homes and held the child out as their own.

It would not apply in cases where a relative or loved one, such as a girlfriend or boyfriend of a parent or other caregiver, has provided only periodic care for a child because current law already stipulates they would not meet the definition of a parent. SB 1476 is sponsored by the Children’s Advocacy Institute and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. 

“We live in a world today where courts face the diverse circumstances that have reshaped California families,” Leno said. “This legislation gives courts the flexibility to protect the best interests of a child who is being supported financially and emotionally by those parents. It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents, especially when a family is in distress and a child’s security is a concern.”

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Anselmo-Fairfax Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jessica Mullins (Editor) May 15, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Thanks for the feedback, John. To my knowledge, we don't have a comments stream anywhere. DefinitelyRead More submit your comments here (it's the most efficient way to get your thoughts heard at the higher level): http://ow.ly/l4cyg
M. Kathryn Thompson May 21, 2013 at 09:54 am
Dr. Gullion is also lovely with men who get breast cancer as my husband did, he's the best!
Bren April 22, 2013 at 04:13 pm
Is anybody else here getting multiple e-mail notifications of new comments by Jo Tog, and thenRead More clicking the link, only to find that they are actually old comments from Jo Tog, but with today's date on them? What's the deal? Did all his comments get flagged and deleted, and now he's re-posting them? Most curious.
Sierra Salin April 22, 2013 at 02:02 pm
Jo Trog, we live in a Corporatocracy, not a republic. We abdicated the Republic after 9/11, if notRead More before. Know the difference.
Hiba April 21, 2013 at 06:52 pm
Banning the sale in a free market economy is too strong. I believe people should be able to chooseRead More so long as the product is labeled correctly, and even placed in a section with a big sign that says "GM Food products". Would I buy it if I pass the section at the grocery store: NO.
A May 4, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Many people in Marin are already at 50% or more of their entire income to pay for housing. And weRead More have no rent control here in Marin which is the only way I've seen that most seniors have been able to stay in San Francisco for several decades. Regarding your statement: "Market rate housing generates tax revenues, which in turn pay for schools, parks, emergency services, etc." Low income people pay a lot of sales tax in Marin (which is really high) and that also supports these causes. If they don't have the money to pay property taxes to own property, then the fact is, they just can't pay it. Be thankful that a large group of the population in Marin makes enough money to own property and pay it (and turn around and sell their houses for a handsome profit as well, don't forget about that.) Some folks here are just SPOILED rotten. Perhaps you should lobby that Marin employers just pay people living wages so they can afford to become buyers here and pay property taxes instead of trying to lobby against housing for the poor. Goodness knows how many taxes child-free low income people have paid to support wealthy folks kids and schools here. We don't get any of that, either, but we still have to pay for it...
A May 4, 2013 at 12:53 pm
I've heard that Marin is already in violation (either state or federal, or both) of not havingRead More enough low income housing in the county for its population. I think the county is under pressure to come into compliance which it has been out of in this area for a long time. This can only serve to better the lives of low income and elderly people in our county and perhaps reduce homelessness as well which is something we sorely need to do. However, what is amazing to me is that what we are calling "low income" housing in Marin still costs $1K+ a month per person from what I can tell. That's not "low income". Someone paying that much needs to be earning about $4K a month to keep housing costs in the 25-30% range that every financial planner recommends for a basic budget. I see a lot of low income people working HARD full-time to earn $1,600 a month here in restaurants, grocery stores, retail, hair salons, gyms, even clinics. They can't afford to live in Marin so many of them commute in from the east bay and further north to work in Marin. That is what is not sustainable. Think about the gas and pollution and the quality of life in the community due to turnover because there is no personal interaction with the staff of a lot of these places anymore because they don't stick around for very long.