California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Enacted

SB 274 — Family law: parentage: child custody and support.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 564, Statutes of 2013.

Track this bill free

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

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

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2013. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 72% · 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.

  • 2 sponsors

    1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 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) Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child's mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably presumed to be the father if he was married to, or attempted to marry, the mother before or after the birth of the child, or he receives the child as his own and openly holds the child out as his own. Under existing law, the latter presumptions are rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity by another man. This bill would authorize a court to find that more than 2 persons with a claim to parentage, as specified, are parents if the court finds that recognizing only 2 parents would be detrimental to the child. The bill would direct the court, in making this determination, to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child's physical needs and the child's psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. (2) The Uniform Parentage Act defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child's parents, including the mother and child relationship and the father and child relationship, and governs proceedings to establish that relationship. This bill would provide that a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents. The bill would require any reference to 2 parents to be interpreted to apply to all of a child's parents where a child is found to have more than 2 parents, as specified. (3) Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes an order of preference for allocating child custody and directs the court to choose a parenting plan that is in the child's best interest. This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 parents, require the court to allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, as specified. (4) Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are responsible for supporting the child. Existing law establishes the statewide uniform guideline for calculating court-ordered child support, which is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support. Existing law provides that the presumption may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that application of the uniform guideline would be unjust or inappropriate because of one or more factors found to be applicable and the court provides certain information in writing, as specified. This bill would direct the court to apply the statewide uniform guideline in a case where a child has more than 2 parents by dividing the child support obligations among the parents based on the income of each of the parents and the amount of time spent with the child by each parent. The bill would require the court to divide child support obligations among the parents in a just and appropriate manner, as specified, if the court finds that applying the statewide uniform guideline to a child with more than 2 parents would be unjust and inappropriate, as specified. (5) Under existing law, the birth parents of an adopted child are, from the time of the adoption, relieved of all parental duties towards, and all responsibility for, the adopted child, and have no right over the child. This bill would provide that the termination of the parental duties and responsibility of the parent or parents may be waived if both the parent or parents and the prospective adoptive parent or parents sign a waiver at any time prior to the finalization of the adoption. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes in Sections 7601 and 7612 of the Family Code, proposed by AB 1403, to be operative only if AB 1403 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective January 1, 2014, and this bill is chaptered last.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 564, Statutes of 2013.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

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

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 26. Noes 11. Page 2181.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  6. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 48. Noes 27. Page 2828.) Ordered to the Senate.

  7. Ordered to third reading.

  8. Read third time and amended. (Page 2669.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (July 3).

  11. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  12. Referred to Com. on JUD.

  13. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  14. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 28. Noes 11. Page 1092.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  15. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  16. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 4. Noes 2. Page 989.) (May 20).

  17. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  18. Set for hearing May 20.

  19. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  20. Set for hearing May 13.

  21. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 2. Page 753.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  22. Set for hearing April 30.

  23. Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  24. Set for hearing April 23.

  25. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  26. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.

  27. Referred to Com. on RLS.

  28. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 17.

  29. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Beall · Cosponsor
  • Leno · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on · 6 voted No

Sponsors (1)

  • Leno

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Beall

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

Unfinished Business SB274 Leno Concurrence

Passed 26 Yea · 11 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 241101
Democratic 2001
Total 261102
% of votes cast 67%28%0%5%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Huff — Nay
Leno — Yea
Monning — Yea
Pavley — Yea
Vidak — Nay
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
Evans — Yea
Liu — Yea
Correa — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
De León — Yea
Lara — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wright — Yea
Wyland — Nay
Fuller — Not Voting
Cannella — Nay
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Anderson — Nay
Corbett — Yea
Knight — Nay
Nielsen — Nay
Roth — Yea
Walters — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Yee — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

SB 274 Leno Senate Third Reading By STONE

Passed 48 Yea · 27 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 452402
Democratic 3001
Republican 0300
Total 482703
% of votes cast 62%35%0%4%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Nay
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Linder — Nay
Mansoor — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Williams — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Holden — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Fong — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Daly — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Medina — Yea
Fox — Nay
Bocanegra — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Gorell — Nay
Allen — Nay
Hagman — Nay
Hall — Not Voting
Harkey — Nay
Salas — Nay
Campos — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Levine — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Alejo — Not Voting
Bigelow — Nay
Conway — Nay
Cooley — Nay
Donnelly — Nay
Logue — Nay
Maienschein — Nay
Melendez — Nay
Morrell — Nay
Mullin — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Olsen — Nay
Perea — Yea
Ting — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Waldron — Nay
Weber — Yea
Wilk — Nay
Skinner — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Jim Patterson — Nay
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Nay
Grove, Shannon Republican Nay
Jones, Brian W. Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 5 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11500
Democratic 1000
Total 12500
% of votes cast 71%29%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Nay
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Nay
Quirk — Yea
Wagner — Nay
Bocanegra — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Hall — Yea
Harkey — Nay
Campos — Yea
Holden — Yea
Donnelly — Nay
Eggman — Yea
Pan — Yea
Weber — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 28 Yea · 11 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 251100
Democratic 3000
Total 281100
% of votes cast 72%28%0%0%
How each member voted (39)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Nay
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Walters — Nay
Wyland — Nay
Cannella — Nay
Wright — Yea
Evans — Yea
Fuller — Nay
De León — Yea
Corbett — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Beall — Yea
Block — Yea
Correa — Yea
Huff — Nay
Knight — Nay
Leno — Yea
Lieu — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Nielsen — Nay
Pavley — Yea
Price — Yea
Roth — Yea
Steinberg — Yea
Torres — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Emmerson — Nay
DeSaulnier — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Yee — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Bill Berryhill — Nay
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 4 Yea · 2 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 3201
Democratic 1000
Total 4201
% of votes cast 57%29%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Hill — Yea
Lara — Not Voting
Steinberg — Yea
Walters — Nay
De León — Yea
Beth Gaines — Nay
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic 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 SB 274 do?
(1) Under existing law, a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of a child if he was married to and cohabiting with the child's mother, except as specified. Existing law also provides that if a man signs a voluntary declaration of paternity, it has the force and effect of a judgment of paternity, subject to certain exceptions. Existing law further provides that a man is rebuttably presumed to be the father if he was married to, or attempted to marry, the mother before or after the birth of the child, or he receives the child as his own and openly holds the child out as his own. Under existing law, the latter presumptions are rebutted by a judgment establishing paternity by another man. This bill would authorize a court to find that more than 2 persons with a claim to parentage, as specified, are parents if the court finds that recognizing only 2 parents would be detrimental to the child. The bill would direct the court, in making this determination, to consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child's physical needs and the child's psychological needs for care and affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period of time. (2) The Uniform Parentage Act defines the parent and child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child's parents, including the mother and child relationship and the father and child relationship, and governs proceedings to establish that relationship. This bill would provide that a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents. The bill would require any reference to 2 parents to be interpreted to apply to all of a child's parents where a child is found to have more than 2 parents, as specified. (3) Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes an order of preference for allocating child custody and directs the court to choose a parenting plan that is in the child's best interest. This bill would, in the case of a child with more than 2 parents, require the court to allocate custody and visitation among the parents based on the best interest of the child, as specified. (4) Under existing law, the parents of a minor child are responsible for supporting the child. Existing law establishes the statewide uniform guideline for calculating court-ordered child support, which is rebuttably presumed to be the correct amount of child support. Existing law provides that the presumption may be rebutted by admissible evidence showing that application of the uniform guideline would be unjust or inappropriate because of one or more factors found to be applicable and the court provides certain information in writing, as specified. This bill would direct the court to apply the statewide uniform guideline in a case where a child has more than 2 parents by dividing the child support obligations among the parents based on the income of each of the parents and the amount of time spent with the child by each parent. The bill would require the court to divide child support obligations among the parents in a just and appropriate manner, as specified, if the court finds that applying the statewide uniform guideline to a child with more than 2 parents would be unjust and inappropriate, as specified. (5) Under existing law, the birth parents of an adopted child are, from the time of the adoption, relieved of all parental duties towards, and all responsibility for, the adopted child, and have no right over the child. This bill would provide that the termination of the parental duties and responsibility of the parent or parents may be waived if both the parent or parents and the prospective adoptive parent or parents sign a waiver at any time prior to the finalization of the adoption. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes in Sections 7601 and 7612 of the Family Code, proposed by AB 1403, to be operative only if AB 1403 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective January 1, 2014, and this bill is chaptered last.
Who sponsors SB 274?
SB 274 is sponsored by Beall and Leno.
What is the current status of SB 274?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 14, 2013. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 274?
Track SB 274 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 274

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 SB 274

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →