AB 939 — Family law proceedings.

Summary

Existing law prohibits after entry of judgment in specified family law proceedings in which there was at issue the visitation, custody, or support of a child, modification of the judgment or order, and prohibits a subsequent order in the proceedings, unless notice is served upon the party, as specified. This bill would authorize a postjudgment motion to modify a custody, visitation, or child support order to be served on the other party by first-class mail or airmail, as specified. Existing law provides that all relevant evidence is admissible in an action before the court, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, subject to specified exceptions. This bill would require the court in a family law action to receive all live, competent, and relevant testimony at a hearing of an order to show cause or notice of motion, unless the parties stipulate otherwise or the court makes a finding of good cause to refuse to hear the testimony. Existing law provides that a court in a dissolution of marriage proceeding may order one party to pay the other party an amount that is reasonably necessary for attorney's fees or costs in order to ensure that each party has access to legal representation. Under existing law, the court shall base this determination on the respective incomes and needs of the parties and any factors affecting the parties' respective abilities to pay. This bill would provide that, when a request for attorney's fees and costs is made, the court shall make findings regarding whether an award of attorney's fees and costs is appropriate, whether there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and whether one party is able to pay for legal representation. The bill would require the court to make an order awarding attorney's fees and costs if the findings demonstrate disparity in access and ability to pay. The bill would require the Judicial Council, by January 1, 2012, to adopt a rule of court and develop a form to implement this provision. Existing law provides for summary dissolution proceedings if certain conditions exist at the time the proceeding is commenced, including that there are no children, as specified, neither party has any interest in real property, as specified, and the marriage is not more than 5 years in duration at the time the petition is filed. A proceeding for summary dissolution is commenced by filing a joint petition that is signed under oath by the husband and the wife, as specified. This bill would revise the latter condition that must be met at the time a proceeding for summary dissolution is commenced to instead require that the marriage be not more than 5 years in duration as of the date of separation of the parties. Existing law also provides that when 6 months have expired from the date of the filing of the joint petition for summary dissolution of marriage, the court may, upon application of either party, enter judgment dissolving the marriage. At any time before the filing of the application for judgment, however, either party to the marriage may revoke the joint petition and thereby terminate the proceeding for summary dissolution. This bill would authorize the court to enter judgment dissolving the marriage when 6 months have expired without requiring the application of either party, unless a revocation of the joint petition has been filed. Existing law provides that in an action for dissolution of marriage, the court, upon motion, is required to hold a preliminary status conference to determine whether a case management plan will be ordered. Existing law further provides that no case management plan may be ordered absent the stipulation of the parties. Existing law also sets forth the content of case management plans. This bill would delete the requirement that the parties stipulate to the case management plan. The bill would also delete references to case management plans and would instead refer to family centered case resolution plans. The bill would revise the content of those plans and require the Judicial Council to adopt a statewide rule of court to implement these provisions. The latter provisions would become operative on January 1, 2012. Existing law provides that the court may appoint private counsel to represent the interests of a child in a custody or visitation proceeding if it determines that it would be in the best interest of the child. Existing law specifies the duties of a child's counsel, and grants the counsel the discretion to present the child's wishes to the court if he or she deems it appropriate. This bill would require the court and counsel to comply with specified requirements if the court appoints private counsel pursuant to the provision described above. The bill would also require the child's counsel to present the child's wishes to the court if the child so desires. Existing law authorizes a mediator to submit a recommendation to the court as to the custody of or visitation with a child, except as specified. This bill would provide that the mediation and recommendation process shall be referred to as "child custody recommending counseling" and the mediator shall be referred to as a "child custody recommending counselor." Under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, the court in a protective order proceeding may issue an ex parte order granting temporary child custody and visitation to a party who has established a parent and child relationship. Existing law provides that the court may not make a finding of paternity in this proceeding. This bill would provide that the court in a protective order proceeding may accept a stipulation of paternity by the parties and, if paternity is uncontested, enter a judgment establishing paternity. The bill would provide that if the court in a protective order proceeding makes an order for custody, visitation, or support, the order shall survive the termination of the protective order. Under existing law, if allegations of child sexual abuse arise during a child custody proceeding, the court may take reasonable, temporary steps to protect the child's safety, including requesting that the local child welfare services agency conduct an investigation of the allegations. Existing law provides that a social worker shall make an investigation of allegations of child abuse or neglect and shall determine whether it is appropriate to offer child welfare services to the family. Under existing law, juvenile case files are confidential, except as provided. This bill would expand the scope of those provisions to apply to all allegations of child abuse. The bill would direct a social worker to draw no inference regarding the credibility of allegations of child abuse from the mere existence of a child custody or visitation dispute. The bill would also provide an exception to the confidentiality of child welfare agency records for certain participants in family law and probate guardianship cases by authorizing the child welfare agency to permit inspection of, and to provide copies of, its records, as specified.

Bill Text

• Chaptered 09/27/10 - Chaptered Current pdf September 27, 2010
• Enrolled 08/30/10 - Enrolled pdf August 30, 2010
• Amended 08/16/10 - Amended Senate pdf August 16, 2010
• Amended 08/03/10 - Amended Senate pdf August 03, 2010
• Amended 08/02/10 - Amended Senate pdf August 02, 2010
• Amended 07/15/10 - Amended Senate pdf July 15, 2010
• Amended 06/17/10 - Amended Senate pdf June 17, 2010
• Amended 01/04/10 - Amended Assembly pdf January 04, 2010
• Introduced 02/26/09 - Introduced pdf February 26, 2009
• AB939 View text html

Action History

1. September 27, 2010

   Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 352, Statutes of 2010.

2. September 25, 2010

   Approved by the Governor.

3. September 02, 2010

   Enrolled and to the Governor at 3:45 p.m.

4. August 23, 2010

   Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 75. Noes 0. Page 6482.)

5. August 23, 2010

   Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 6463.)

6. August 20, 2010

   In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 24 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

7. August 20, 2010

   Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 32. Noes 0. Page 4709.)

8. August 17, 2010

   Read second time. To third reading.

9. August 16, 2010

   Read third time, amended. To second reading.

10. August 11, 2010

    Read second time. To third reading.

11. August 10, 2010

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (August 9).

12. August 03, 2010

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

13. August 02, 2010

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

14. August 02, 2010

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

15. July 15, 2010

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

16. July 15, 2010

    From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).

17. June 17, 2010

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

18. February 04, 2010

    Referred to Coms. on JUD. and APPR.

19. January 19, 2010

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

20. January 19, 2010

    Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 71. Noes 0. Page 3816.)

21. January 13, 2010

    Read second time. To Consent Calendar.

22. January 12, 2010

    From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (January 12).

23. January 04, 2010

    Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

24. January 04, 2010

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

25. April 28, 2009

    In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

26. March 26, 2009

    Referred to Com. on JUD.

27. February 27, 2009

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 29.

28. February 26, 2009

    Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

• Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Votes

Subjects