California 2011-2012 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 1406 — Dissolution of marriage: proceedings.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 107, Statutes of 2012.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 07, 2011. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law requires each party to a proceeding for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties to serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets, as specified, after or concurrently with service of the petition for dissolution. This bill instead would require the petitioner to serve the preliminary declaration of disclosure either concurrently with the petition for dissolution or within 60 days of filing the petition, and would require the respondent to serve the other party with the preliminary declaration of disclosure either concurrently with the response to the petition or within 60 days of filing the response, unless those time periods are extended by written agreement of the parties or by court order. The bill also would require the preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets to include all tax returns filed by the declarant within the 2 years prior to the date that the party served the declaration. (2) Existing law governs determinations of child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of the child, and under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Under existing law, a court is authorized to appoint private counsel to represent the child's interests in a custody or visitation proceeding if the court determines that appointing counsel would be in the best interest of the child. The child's appointed counsel is required to gather and present facts that bear on the best interest of the child, including the child's wishes if the child so desires. Under existing law, the court is required to consider a statement of issues and contentions of the child's counsel when the court determines custody or visitation. This bill would eliminate the requirement that the court consider a child's attorney's statement of issues and contentions when the court determines custody or visitation. (3) Existing law authorizes the court, in dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation, and child custody and visitation proceedings, to order any party, except a governmental entity, to pay the amount reasonably necessary for attorney's fees and for the cost of maintaining or defending the proceeding, subject to augmentation or modification from time to time and before entry of judgment. Under existing law, a party who lacks the financial ability to hire an attorney may ask the court, as an in pro per litigant, to order the other party to pay a reasonable amount to allow the unrepresented party to retain an attorney in a timely manner. This bill would require the court, in addressing a request for attorney's fees and costs in child custody and visitation proceedings, to order attorney's fees and costs for an in pro per litigant if the court finds that there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel and that one party is able to pay for the legal representation of both parties.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 107, Statutes of 2012.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3:20 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 5554.).

  5. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after June 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 36. Noes 0. Page 4181.).

  7. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  8. From committee: Do pass. To consent calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 19).

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

  10. Referred to Com. on JUD.

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

  12. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 73. Noes 0. Page 1178.)

  13. Read second time. Ordered to consent calendar.

  14. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass as amended. To consent calendar. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 12).

  16. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  17. From printer. May be heard in committee April 7.

  18. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Committee on Judiciary · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

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

Sponsors (1)

  • Committee on Judiciary

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 1406 JUD. Concurrence in Senate Amendments By FEUER

Passed 79 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 77000
Democratic 0001
Total 79001
% of votes cast 99%0%0%1%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Butler — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Gordon — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Halderman — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Hall — Yea
Campos — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Hill — Yea
Carter — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Allen — Yea
Knight — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Fong — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Davis — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Silva — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Beall — Yea
Ma — Yea
Monning — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Block — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Logue — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Miller — Yea
Norby — Yea
Perea — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eng — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Fuentes — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Consent Calendar 2nd AB1406 Committee on JUD.

Passed 36 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 33004
Republican 1000
Democratic 2000
Total 36004
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Not Voting
Fuller — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Harman — Yea
Negrete McLeod — Yea
Hernandez — Not Voting
Huff — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Kehoe — Yea
De León — Not Voting
Runner — Not Voting
Blakeslee — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Dutton — Yea
Leno — Yea
Liu — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Simitian — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Vargas — Yea
Walters — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Wright — Yea
Alquist — Yea
Anderson — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Price — Yea
Wyland — Yea
Emmerson — Yea
Correa — Yea
Evans — Yea
DeSaulnier — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
La Malfa — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Strickland, Tony Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 1406 JUD. Consent Calendar Second Day

Passed 73 Yea · 0 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 69005
Democratic 2001
Republican 2000
Total 73006
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Hagman — Yea
Hall — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Butler — Yea
Furutani — Yea
Garrick — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Campos — Yea
Halderman — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Hayashi — Yea
Carter — Yea
Portantino — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Hill — Yea
Fletcher — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Cedillo — Yea
Knight — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Lara — Yea
Miller — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Conway — Yea
Cook — Yea
Davis — Yea
Donnelly — Yea
Monning — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Norby — Yea
Pan — Yea
Perea — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Smyth — Yea
Swanson — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Galgiani — Not Voting
Gorell — Not Voting
Mendoza — Not Voting
Achadjian — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Blumenfield — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brownley — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Huber — Yea
Jeffries — Yea
Logue — Yea
Ma — Yea
Mansoor — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Silva — Yea
Solorio — Yea
Valadao — Yea
Williams — Yea
Eng — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Fuentes — Not Voting
Gatto — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Yea
Bonnie Lowenthal — Yea
Roger Hernández — Not Voting
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended, to Consent Calendar.

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 8001
Republican 1000
Total 9001
% of votes cast 90%0%0%10%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Gorell — Not Voting
Huber — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Huffman — Yea
Monning — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Feuer — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

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 1406 do?
(1) Existing law requires each party to a proceeding for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties to serve on the other party a preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets, as specified, after or concurrently with service of the petition for dissolution. This bill instead would require the petitioner to serve the preliminary declaration of disclosure either concurrently with the petition for dissolution or within 60 days of filing the petition, and would require the respondent to serve the other party with the preliminary declaration of disclosure either concurrently with the response to the petition or within 60 days of filing the response, unless those time periods are extended by written agreement of the parties or by court order. The bill also would require the preliminary declaration of disclosure of assets to include all tax returns filed by the declarant within the 2 years prior to the date that the party served the declaration. (2) Existing law governs determinations of child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of the child, and under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Under existing law, a court is authorized to appoint private counsel to represent the child's interests in a custody or visitation proceeding if the court determines that appointing counsel would be in the best interest of the child. The child's appointed counsel is required to gather and present facts that bear on the best interest of the child, including the child's wishes if the child so desires. Under existing law, the court is required to consider a statement of issues and contentions of the child's counsel when the court determines custody or visitation. This bill would eliminate the requirement that the court consider a child's attorney's statement of issues and contentions when the court determines custody or visitation. (3) Existing law authorizes the court, in dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation, and child custody and visitation proceedings, to order any party, except a governmental entity, to pay the amount reasonably necessary for attorney's fees and for the cost of maintaining or defending the proceeding, subject to augmentation or modification from time to time and before entry of judgment. Under existing law, a party who lacks the financial ability to hire an attorney may ask the court, as an in pro per litigant, to order the other party to pay a reasonable amount to allow the unrepresented party to retain an attorney in a timely manner. This bill would require the court, in addressing a request for attorney's fees and costs in child custody and visitation proceedings, to order attorney's fees and costs for an in pro per litigant if the court finds that there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel and that one party is able to pay for the legal representation of both parties.
Who sponsors AB 1406?
AB 1406 is sponsored by Committee on Judiciary.
What is the current status of AB 1406?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced March 07, 2011. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 1406?
Track AB 1406 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1406

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 1406

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →