California 2009-2010 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly

AB 375 — Child custody: child sexual abuse.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law requires the court to refrain from making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California. For purposes of this provision, immediate harm to the child includes, but is not limited to, having a parent who has committed acts of domestic violence, or the sexual abuse of the child, where the court determines that the acts of domestic violence or of sexual abuse are of recent origin or are a part of a demonstrated and continuing pattern of those respective acts. This bill would revise that provision to prohibit the court from making, rather than refrain from making, that order. The bill would also prohibit, unless there is a showing of immediate danger to the health and safety of the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, a court from granting a request to modify a child custody order on an ex parte basis if there is a finding that there has been sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, if the court determines that the act of sexual abuse or domestic violence is of recent origin, or part of a demonstrated and continuing or escalating pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, and if the request for modification of the custody order is made by a person who is alleged to have perpetrated a recent act or a pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child and it is alleged that the person is seeking the modification in order to gain greater access to the child. Under those circumstances, a hearing regarding modification of the custody order would be conducted in open court. The bill would make a related change. The bill would also define "recent origin," for purposes of these provisions, to apply to acts occurring within the previous 5 years.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  3. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  4. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  6. Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 1912.)

  7. Read third time, amended, and returned to third reading. (Page 1816.).

  8. Read second time. To third reading.

  9. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 31).

  10. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  11. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  12. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  13. From printer. May be heard in committee March 26.

  14. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Nielsen · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Nielsen

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 375 NIELSEN Assembly Third Reading

Passed 91 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 85001
Republican 3000
Democratic 3000
Total 91001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (92)
Member Party Vote
Manuel — Yea
Perez — Yea
John — Yea
A. — Yea
Perez — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Salas — Yea
Saldana — Yea
Audra — Yea
Ruskin — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Torlakson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Tran — Yea
Villines — Yea
Carter — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Coto — Yea
Bill — Yea
Tom — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Charles — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
De — Yea
La — Yea
Torre — Yea
De — Yea
Leon — Yea
Huber — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Fong — Yea
Bonnie — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
V. — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Beall — Yea
Davis — Yea
Duvall — Yea
Knight — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Logue — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Miller — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Adams — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Bass — Yea
Blakeslee — Yea
Block — Not Voting
Blumenfield — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hill — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nava — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Price — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torrico — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeVore — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gilmore — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9000
Republican 1000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Feuer — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Krekorian — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Tran — Yea
Knight — Yea
Monning — Yea
Evans — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 375 do?
Existing law requires the court to refrain from making an order granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California. For purposes of this provision, immediate harm to the child includes, but is not limited to, having a parent who has committed acts of domestic violence, or the sexual abuse of the child, where the court determines that the acts of domestic violence or of sexual abuse are of recent origin or are a part of a demonstrated and continuing pattern of those respective acts. This bill would revise that provision to prohibit the court from making, rather than refrain from making, that order. The bill would also prohibit, unless there is a showing of immediate danger to the health and safety of the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, a court from granting a request to modify a child custody order on an ex parte basis if there is a finding that there has been sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, if the court determines that the act of sexual abuse or domestic violence is of recent origin, or part of a demonstrated and continuing or escalating pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child, and if the request for modification of the custody order is made by a person who is alleged to have perpetrated a recent act or a pattern of acts of sexual abuse of, or domestic violence against, the child and it is alleged that the person is seeking the modification in order to gain greater access to the child. Under those circumstances, a hearing regarding modification of the custody order would be conducted in open court. The bill would make a related change. The bill would also define "recent origin," for purposes of these provisions, to apply to acts occurring within the previous 5 years.
Who sponsors AB 375?
AB 375 is sponsored by Nielsen.
What is the current status of AB 375?
This bill died with 2009-2010 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 375?
Track AB 375 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 375

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 375

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →