The following bills have been submitted to this year’s Legislature. There are at least two bills that are “controversial” regarding custody and a number of bills that are referred to as a “spot” bill (doesn’t propose substantive change now but holds that bill number for intended bill later/says something but it is understood that major changes will occur later). Some of the “spot’ bills are place holders, waiting for ideas from the Elkins Task Force and could move quickly then.
I have “selected” those I think may be of the greatest interest. There are, as usual the last few years, numerous bills on adoption, foster care and juvenile court issues. I have listed them at the end in case you want to look them up, which you can do here.
In the Assembly (in numerical order with author’s name):
AB 375 (Neilsen) – this bill originally sought to eliminate limited judiciary discretion that exists now for Ex Parte Custody modification (bill only affects custody modifications). It also adds to FC §3064 a three-part test regarding sexual abuse/DV allegations/evidence regarding Court’s ability to act without a hearing. The bill was amended March 23, 2009, to add language that would purportedly add back the judiciary discretion and make minimal but nonsubstantive changes to the rest of the proposed amendments in the original bill. It is set for hearing on March 31, 2009.
AB 459 (Lowenthal) – This bill is actually sponsored by the State Bar Family Law Section and amends the Disclosure statutes (FC sections 2301, 2104, 2105, 2106 and 2107) to provide a means of addressing the gap when the party complying with providing the Preliminary Disclosure Declaration wants a dissolution and the other party will not respond/comply. It is also set for hearing on March 31, 2009.
AB 612 (Beall) – This bill will likely be the “hottest” ticket regarding custody legislation this year. It proposes to amend FC §3011 and add other sections. For legislature “followers,” this bill is sponsored by the same group who sponsored AB 612 in 2007 and a similar bill the year before that. The goal of prior bills was to curtail, severely, what custody evaluators could do, especially regarding Parental Alienation. This bill a) would change evidentiary standard–in custody cases–of “scientific” evidence from Kelly Frye standard to undefined majority of professionals; b) it would prohibit use of “nonscientific” theories, the example being “alienation” theory, which is not defined, c) it would limit judicial discretion by prohibiting the Court from adopting any part of an evaluation that includes such undefined “nonscientific” theories.
It is set for hearing on April 14, 2009 and opposed so far, by FlexCom, AFCC-CA and LA Bar’s Family Law ExCom. The ACFLS Ex. Com. did vote recently to recommend opposing this bill to the Board at our April 16, 2009 meeting.
AB 939 (Assembly Judiciary Committee) – This bill would give the Family Court the authority to order case management over one or both parties’ objections. This is evidently an initial/tentative recommendation from the Elkins Task Force and this particular bill is viewed as a place holder for future recommendations from the Task Force that the Assembly Judiciary Committee wants to propose/pursue. The Code sections affected are FC sections 2450, 2451 and 2452.
AB 1050 (Ma) This bill’s title indicates “Child Custody; Preferences of the Child.” It is viewed as a spot bill but is expected to possibly generate controversy when more substantive language is provided. Amends FC section 3042. This bill was just amended (March 27, 2009) to add language that it is presumed a child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference at ten years of age.
AB 1261 (Strickland) – This bill would prohibit the Court from ever granting more than supervised visitation to anyone who is a registered sex offender (no matter how long ago, level of actual offense, etc.) and does away with existing Court discretion to consider circumstances and necessity for stringent orders. Amends FC sections 3030 and 3030.5.
In the Senate (in numerical order/bill number and author)
SB 276 (Harman) – This is proposed legislation regarding non probate transfers and amends Prob. Code 5020. This would impact/affect ATROS in Family Law cases (require an addition to the language on Judicial Council forms). This was a “spot bill” introduced last year and no action occurred. It is still evidently going to occur but when and what is unknown now.
SB 285 (Wright) – This bill would amend/add a number of code sections in the CCP and Family Code (§4510 and 4726.5 FC). The goal of the bill is to provide that interest and penalties on a support judgment will not accrue if the obligor is incarcerated in County jail/State prison. The bill would require the Court to make an inquiry as to obligor’s possible incarceration whenever ordering interest/penalties. Only exception is where the Court finds obligor has resources to pay penalties/interest while incarcerated.
SB 543 (Leno) – This bill would amend existing law (FC section 6924) to eliminate one of two existing criteria required for minors 12 or older to seek mental health treatment and eliminate the duty of mental health provider to attempt to notify parents of the child seeking and receiving such treatment.
SB 578 (Wright) – this bill amends FC section 17433.5 and would provide for what appears to be a convoluted process of constant adjustment (non-application/application) of interest on a support judgment in months where current child support is paid/not paid timely.
Other Bills –
Juvenile –
AB 82 (Evans) – Dependent children: Psychotropic medications
AB131 (Evans) – Juvenile proceedings: Costs (provides the Court as well as the County can bill parents for reimbursement of cost of appointed counsel with Judicial Council setting standards and exceptions for the process).
AB 270 (De La Torre) – Dependent Children
AB 337 (Torres) – Juvenile Court records: sealing and destruction
AB 706 (Committee on Human Services) – Dependent Children
AB 921 (Jones) – Dual status children: access to services
AB 938 (Committee on Judiciary) – Dependent children: relative caregivers and foster parents (e.g. finding and identifying possible relative placements at earliest point in the process);
AB 1048 (Torrico) – Child Protection – Safe surrender (extending to 30 days);
AB 1324 (Bass) – Children: Wrap-around services;
SB 118 (Liu) – Child Welfare Services: incarcerated parents;
SB 134 (Liu) Juveniles: Communications with children (of the incarcerated juveniles);
SB (Runner) – Juvenile Law – referee.
Other bills (Adoption/Foster Care)
AB 12 (Beall) California Fostering Connections to Success Act;
AB 154 (Evans) Adoption Assistance – federal law;
AB 295 (Ammiano) Children: Wrap around and adoption services;
AB 372 (Ma) Adoption records;
AB 743 (Portantino) Foster Care: Sibling Placement;
AB 973 (Strickland) Minors: Temporary custody (of babies born drug dependent with possible pending adoption where CPS wants to remove child from hospital);
AB 1067 (Brownley) Children in Foster Care: School proximity and travel costs;
AB 1325 (Cook) Tribal customary adoption;
SB 597 (Liu) Child Welfare Services, foster care services and adoption assistance.
If you have any questions regarding a particular bill, let me know and I will try to help. The link (to review the bills, their status, the analysis of the bill, when hearings are set, etc.) is easy to use so check the bill out first to see if your concerns/questions are addressed already. If not, let me know.
When I logged on to the 
Lee Rosen asks “”Can your Facebook, Twitter, and email communications be used against you in a divorce?” on a