Family Law
CHANGES TO FAMILY CODE (enacted in 2024)
By: Andrew Botros, CFLS, CALS
Here are the noteworthy changes to the Family Code passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Newsom over the past year. Please take special note of the effective dates.
SB 1427
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Amends Family Code sections 2330, 2331, 2342, 2401, and 2402 and adds Family Code sections 2342.5 and 2342.51
This law now adds the ability of parties to a dissolution of marriage or legal separation proceeding to file a joint petition for dissolution of marriage. If the parties file a “joint petition and joint summons, in a form and content approved by the Judicial Council, the joint petition shall be deemed to be served on both parties upon the filing of the joint petition with the court and both parties shall be determined to have appeared in the matter.”
If an amended petition or response is filed, the joint petition for dissolution or legal separation is revoked and the other side is required to file their own amended petition or response within 30 days.
Either party may seek discovery, as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure, under the joint petition process.
Further, “[i]f either party files a request for order, including, but not limited to, a request for a motion to compel or other discovery motion, or request for trial setting with the court, that party shall file an amended petition or amended response, pursuant to subdivision (b), before making, or simultaneously with, the request.”
AB 2397
Effective date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code sections 3910
This law amends Family Code section 3910 to allow a court to order a support payment to be paid directly to a special needs trust. A “special needs trust” is a “trust that meets the requirements described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of paragraph (4) of subsection (d) of Section 1396p of Title 42 of the United States Code and paragraph (3) or (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 50489.9 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.”
The purpose of this bill is to allow courts the explicit authority to assign child support for children with disabilities to a special needs trust, in conformity with federal law, so that the child does not risk losing SSI (“Supplemental Security Income”). Absent this authority, a child who receives child support risks having that child support counted as income against them when determining SSI eligibility.
AB 2024
Effective date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code sections 6300
This law prohibits the denial of an ex parte request for a protective order under the Domestic violence Prevention Act as long as it is “submitted on mandatory Judicial Council forms, includes all of the forms required to issue an order, and identifies the party submitting the request and the party who is the subject of the requested order.”
This law was established to address court clerks declining ex parte protective order requests due to incomplete information or minor mistakes, unnecessarily delaying the protection of an abused party.
SB 459
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code section 6345
This law requires the Judicial Council to, by January 1, 2025, create one or more specific forms for the purpose of requesting a modification of an existing restraining order. Its purpose is to make it easier for a party to seek a modification of a protective order, given that many victims of domestic violence find it difficult to navigate the modification process when they need additional protection.
AB 3072
Effective Date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code sections 3064 and 3100
This law requires a court, in determining whether there is a sufficient showing of immediate harm to the child to justify an ex parte custody order, to consider a parent’s illegal access to firearms and ammunition, including, but not limited to, whether a parent is prohibited from having firearms and ammunition.
It further requires a court, upon a showing of immediate harm to the child or risk that the child will be removed from the State of California, to consider whether the safety and best interest of the child requires that visitation by that parent be suspended, denied, or limited to situations in which a third person is present, including virtual visitation.
It also permits a parent to submit to the court the name of a person who the parent deems suitable to be present during visitation, which may be accepted or rejected by the court.
It also specifies that, in determining the type of visitation that is in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider the nature of the acts that led to the finding of the risk of immediate harm or immediate risk of removal.
AB 2759
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Amends Family Code section 6389
The Old Law
Under prior law, a court can grant an exemption for the firearm relinquishment requirement of the DVPA for those who are required to carry a firearm/ammunition as a condition of their employment.
The respondent must show that a particular firearm or ammunition is necessary as a condition of continued employment and that the current employer is unable to reassign the respondent to another position where a firearm or ammunition is unnecessary. If such an exemption is granted, the order shall provide that the firearm or ammunition shall be in the physical possession of the respondent only during scheduled work hours and during travel to and from the place of employment.
For peace officers, a court may allow the peace officer to continue to carry a firearm or ammunition if it is a condition of their employment, either on duty or off duty, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer does not pose a threat of harm. Prior to making this finding, the peace officer must submit to a mandatory psychological evaluation may be required to enter into counseling or other remedial treatment programs to deal with any propensity for domestic violence.
The New Law
Under the new law, it is first made clear that the court can only order an exemption to the relinquishment order if the respondent is not otherwise prohibited from owning, possessing, controlling or purchasing a firearm and ammunition under state or federal law.
If a respondent is a “sworn peace officer” (the old law did not include the word “sworn”), the court must now find by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) the peace officer’s personal safety depends on the ability to carry that specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition outside of scheduled work hours.; and 2) The peace officer does not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public by having access to the specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition, including whether the peace officer might use the firearm for any purpose not authorized by the statute.
If the respondent is not a peace officer but is required to carry a specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition during scheduled work hours as a condition of continued employment, and cannot be reassigned, the court may grant an exemption if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent does not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public by having access to the specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition only during scheduled work hours, including whether the respondent might utilize the firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition for a purpose not authorized by the statute. A psychological evaluation for a non-peace officer is optional at the court’s discretion.
The law also provides that if any exemption is granted during the pendency of a TRO and a restraining order after hearing is issued, the court is required to review and make a finding as to whether the exemption remains appropriate based on the same criteria noted above. This review and finding is to occur at the time the restraining order after hearing is issued. The court must also go through the analysis again if it renews a restraining order and that review and finding is to occur when the renewal issues.
This law also expressly authorizes a court to terminate or modify an exemption if it is necessary for the respondent, if the respondent no longer meets the requirements of the statute, or if the respondent otherwise violates the restraining order.
SB 899
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Amends Family Code section 3044 and 6389
Family Code section 3044 provides that upon a finding that a party has committed domestic violence, there is a presumption against that party having sole or joint physical/legal custody of a child. Under the prior version of Family Code section 3044, one of the additional factors the court may consider in determining if the presumption against sole or physical custody has been rebutted, is whether the person has violated any firearm restrictions under Family Code section 6389. The court can now expressly consider whether the person has violated firearm restrictions in two other statutes, Code of Civil Procedure section 527.9 and Penal Code section 18120.
SB 554
Effective date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code section 6301
This law provides that an individual who has suffered a past act or acts of abuse as defined by the DVPA need not be a resident of California to file a petition for a restraining order and authorizes a petition to be filed in any superior court in this state.
This includes, but is not limited to:
a) The county in which the petitioner resides or is temporarily located.
b) The county in which the defendant resides.
c) The county in which the offense occurred.
d) Any other court that may have jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of the case.
Effective date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code section 6306
This law requires all courts to, before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a DVPA order, to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System to determine whether the subject of a proposed DVRO owns or possesses a firearm.
AB 3281
Effective date: January 1, 2025
Amends Family Code section 17400, Code of Civil Procedure section 397.5
This law authorizes a court to transfer jurisdiction of any proceeding under the Family Code to another county where it appears that the both parties have moved from the county rendering the original order. A court may, “when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party.” Prior law limited this authority to proceedings for dissolution of marriage and legal separation only.