AB 1645

AB1645:v99#DOCUMENT

Bill Start

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION

Assembly Bill

No. 1645

An act to amend Section 6400 of, and to add Section 6406 to, the Penal Code, relating to corrections.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1645, as introduced, Mark González. Corrections: Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely (HUGS) Act of 2026.

Existing law authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to prescribe and amend rules and regulations for the administration of prisons and requires regulations, which are adopted by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, to recognize and consider the value of incarcerated person visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing incarcerated persons for successful release and rehabilitation. Existing regulations create the framework for establishing a visitation process in prisons that is conducted in as accommodating a manner as possible, subject to the need to maintain order, the safety of persons, the security of institutions and facilities, and required prison activities and operations.

This bill, the Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely (HUGS) Act of 2026, would additionally require those regulations pertaining to incarcerated person visits to recognize and consider the importance of physical contact in incarcerated person visitation. The bill would prohibit the department from unreasonably restricting the ability of incarcerated persons or their visitors to engage in certain types of nonsexual physical contact throughout the visit, as provided.

Digest Key

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: YES Local Program: NO

Bill Text

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Humanizing and Uniting Generations Safely (HUGS) Act of 2026.

SEC. 2.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) The United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to maintain parent-child relationships absent a compelling government interest, such as protecting a child from an unfit parent (Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 753). The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has recognized that this constitutional right logically encompasses a right to maintain a relationship with a life partner (U.S. v. Wolf Child (2012) 699 F.3d 1082, 1091).

(2) In 2009, the Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 20 (Resolution Chapter 88 of the Statutes of 2009), which encouraged the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to use the bill of rights created by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership as a framework for analysis and determination of procedures when making decisions about services for the children of incarcerated parents.

(3) The bill of rights created by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership includes all of the following:

(A) A child has the right to speak with, see, and touch their parents. Actions to realize this right include, but are not limited to, providing access to visiting rooms that are child-centered nonintimidating, and conducive to bonding, considering proximity to family when locating prisons and assigning incarcerated persons, and encouraging child welfare departments to facilitate contact.

(B) A child has the right to support as that child faces a parent’s incarceration. Actions to realize this right include, but are not limited to, training adults who work with young people to recognize the needs and concerns of children whose parents are incarcerated, providing access to specially trained therapists, counselors, and mentors, and allocating 5 percent of the corrections-related budget to support the families of incarcerated persons.

(C) A child has a right to a lifelong relationship with their parent. Actions to realize this right include, but are not limited to, reexamining the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, designating a family services coordinator at prisons and jails, supporting incarcerated parents on reentry, and focusing on rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration.

(4) The principles announced in the bill of rights created by the San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership additionally apply to close family members and loved ones of incarcerated people, including individuals with family-like relationships who are often excluded under unduly narrow legal definitions of family members.

(5) In resolution A/RES/70/175 (December 2015), the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the “Mandela Rules.” The Mandela Rules require that incarcerated persons be permitted to maintain regular communication with family and friends by visits, telephone, electronic or digital communications, and mail (Rule 58). Further, the Mandela Rules provide that “disciplinary sanctions or restrictive measures shall not include the prohibition of family contact” (Rule 43).

(6) Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 23(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights establish the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

(7) Family bonds extend through prison gates and must be protected during periods of incarceration by promoting in-person contact and regular communication between incarcerated persons and their families.

(8) From 1975 until 1997, Section 2601 of the Penal Code listed the right to “receive personal visits” among the civil rights retained by incarcerated persons.

(9) (A) The American Bar Association established the Criminal Justice Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners (February 2010), which requires correctional authorities to provide incarcerated people with “conditions conducive to maintaining healthy relationships with their families” (Standard 23-1.2(a)(vi)).

(B) Standard 23-8.5(b) directs correctional authorities to implement visiting policies that support maintaining healthy family relationships by providing sufficient visiting space, convenient visiting times, and family-friendly environments.

(C) Standard 23-8.5(c) directs that visitors not be unreasonably excluded on the basis of past criminal convictions.

(D) Standard 23-8.5(e) directs that contact visits be provided to persons incarcerated for more than 30 days absent an individual determination that a contact visit between a particular incarcerated person and a particular visitor poses a specified danger. Prison officials should develop other forms of communication, including video visits, “provided that such options are not a replacement for opportunities for in-person contact.”

(10) (A) Family support and connections can help promote an incarcerated person’s reentry into society and reduce recidivism. Protecting and promoting in-person family contact for an incarcerated person and their family can help to maintain those connections and that support.

(B) As early as January 1972, a study by the then-California Department of Corrections Research Division identified its “central finding” as “the discovery of a strong and consistently positive relationship between parole success and the maintenance of strong family ties while in prison. . . . evidence suggests that the [incarcerated person’s] family should be viewed as the prime treatment agent and family contacts as a major correctional technique.” (Research Report No. 46, Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships, in collaboration with the Research Division of the California Department of Corrections at 111–113).

(C) A review of 50 years of empirical research by the Prison Policy Initiative (December 2021) found that researchers in multiple states consistently concluded that visitation, mail, telephone, and other forms of contact between incarcerated people and their families have positive impacts for both the incarcerated person and their family, including better health, reduced recidivism, and improvement in children’s school performance. In particular, the review affirmed “In-person visitation is incredibly beneficial, reducing recidivism and improving health and behavior.”

(D) Research shows that visits and family programming reduce disciplinary infractions, increase the chances of successful parole, and decrease recidivism rates upon release and reentry into the community. Many incarcerated people rely on their families immediately after release to overcome reentry obstacles, including unemployment, debt, and homelessness.

(11) Research confirms that incarceration imposes heavy burdens on the families of incarcerated people, including trauma for the children of incarcerated parents, as recognized on the adverse childhood experience index, in addition to the high costs of maintaining contact by telephone and visits. Consistent visits also have the potential for reducing the likelihood of intergenerational criminality and incarceration.

(12) Isolation from lack of visits and limited telephone communications adversely affects the mental health of incarcerated people and contributes to mental suffering and conflict within prisons.

(13) Incarcerated people are regularly denied parole due to writeups based on “excessive contact” during visits. This can include hugging for too long, helping to adjust a loved one’s clothing, touching the face of a mother or child, and feeding each other. Denying an incarcerated person parole for engaging in healthy and normal human behavior is harmful and expensive. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, it costs $127,788 per year to incarcerate a person through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. People who are denied parole may be denied for between 3 to 15 years (with parole dates allowed to be advanced to 18 months). If someone is denied parole due to contact during visiting, it costs the state a minimum of $191,682 to continue incarcerating someone for this reason.

(14) The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these burdens for families and adverse effects of isolation for incarcerated persons. From March 2020 to April 2021, in-person visits were canceled. In-person visits were severely restricted thereafter and were canceled intermittently due to periodic COVID-19 outbreaks. In September 2022, COVID-19 restrictions for in-person visits were lifted.

(b) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to strengthen and protect the ability of incarcerated persons to have meaningful and uninhibited physical contact with their loved ones to support the emotional health of Californians and their incarcerated loved ones, to improve in-custody conduct, and to reduce recidivism.

(c) It is the Legislature’s further intent to limit the circumstances under which nonsexual physical contact engaged in during an in-person visitation between an incarcerated person and their family can be denied, restricted, terminated, or suspended, and to ensure that appropriate and healthy physical contact between incarcerated people and their loved ones is not punished.

SEC. 3.

Section 6400 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

6400.

Any amendments to existing regulations and any future regulations adopted by the Department of Corrections which that may impact the visitation of inmates incarcerated persons shall do all of the following:

(a) Recognize and consider the value of visiting as a means to improve the safety of prisons for both staff and inmates. incarcerated persons.

(b) Recognize and consider the important role of inmate incarcerated person visitation in establishing and maintaining a meaningful connection with family and community.

(c) Recognize and consider the important role of inmate incarcerated person visitation in preparing an inmate incarcerated person for successful release and rehabilitation.

(d) Recognize and consider the importance of nonsexual physical contact in incarcerated person visitation.

SEC. 4.

Section 6406 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

6406.

(a) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, in amending existing regulations and adopting future regulations pursuant to Section 6400, shall ensure that regulations related to nonsexual physical contact in incarcerated person visitation, for individuals entering department facilities and for incarcerated persons receiving visitors, are not excessive or unnecessarily punitive. These regulations shall not unreasonably restrict the ability of incarcerated persons or their visitors to have nonsexual physical contact throughout the visit.

(b) Nonsexual physical contact, as described in subdivision (a), includes, but is not limited to, all of the following actions:

(1) Hand holding.

(2) Kissing.

(3) Hugging and lateral holding or side-to-side contact.

(4) Linking arms.

(5) In-movement or transitory touching.

(6) Touching of the face or hair.

(7) Adjusting each other’s clothing without removing articles of clothing.

(8) Holding of the incarcerated person’s minor children and holding of their minor children while accompanied by an adult.

(9) Feeding of the incarcerated person’s minor children.

(10) Feeding of the incarcerated person by minor children.

(11) Any other physical touch that a reasonable person would define as nonsexual and appropriate.

___________________

CORRECTIONS: Heading—Lines 1 and 2. REVISIONS: Heading—Lines 1 and 2.

___________________