Changes to the Family Code Enacted in 2025

By:  Andrew Botros, CFLS, CALS

The following 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.

AB 1363 – Wyland’s Law
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Adds Family Code section 6380.5.

This statute, known as Wyland’s Law, requires superior courts to maintain a record demonstrating that they have met their obligations to transmit protective orders and related information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Family Code section 6380. DOJ must likewise maintain a record showing its receipt of that information.

Those records—showing whether courts and DOJ have fulfilled their transmission and receipt obligations—are expressly made public records that are not exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

Subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, DOJ may establish, or contract with a vendor to establish, an automated protected person information and notification system. The system would allow a petitioner or protected person to obtain automated information about: (1) whether DOJ has received a record of the protective order, (2) whether the protective order has been successfully served, and (3) whether the restrained person has violated the order by attempting to purchase or acquire a firearm or ammunition while the order is in effect.

AB 1375 – Consideration of Human Trafficking in Custody
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Adds Family Code section 3040.5.

New section 3040.5 requires the court, when determining the best interests of a child under Family Code section 3011, to consider any relevant, admissible evidence that a parent has caused human trafficking of the child or of the other parent.

AB 1134 – Coerced Marriage / Late Nullity Petitions
Effective date: January 1, 2027
Amends, repeals, and adds Family Code section 2211

With respect to Family Code section 2211, existing law provides that a marriage is voidable and may be adjudged a nullity if certain conditions existed at the time of the marriage, including when a party was underage, of unsound mind, or when consent was obtained by fraud or by force. Under prior law, a party whose consent was obtained by fraud or force had four years after the marriage to file a nullity action.

Commencing January 1, 2027, a court may, upon a showing of good cause, permit a party to proceed with a petition for nullity filed beyond the applicable limitations period if that party’s consent to the marriage was obtained by force. The Judicial Council is required to modify or develop the forms necessary to implement these provisions.

For practitioners, this means that survivors of forced marriage who missed the prior four-year deadline may still seek nullity after January 1, 2027, if they can show good cause for the delay and establish that consent to the marriage was obtained by force.

SB 50 – Connected Devices and Domestic Violence
Effective date: January 1, 2026
Adds Chapter 35.5 (commencing with Business and Professions Code section 22948.30) and amends Family Code section 6320.

SB 50 creates a “device protection request” process designed to cut off an abuser’s access to connected devices—such as smart home systems, vehicles, and wearable devices—when those devices are being used to stalk, harass, monitor, or otherwise abuse a survivor.

The statute defines “connected device” as any device or other physical object that can connect to the internet, directly or indirectly, and that has an internet protocol address or Bluetooth address or enables a person to remotely obtain data from or send commands to the device or an associated account. Certain peripherals that are solely dependent on another device for connectivity, and devices that are more than 10 years old or no longer supported by the account manager, are excluded.

A survivor (or a designated representative) may submit a device protection request to the account manager for a covered device or online service. Within two business days of receiving a complete request, the account manager must either terminate or disable the alleged abuser’s access to the device or service, or provide instructions to reset the device so that all account holders are removed. The law requires account managers to keep request materials confidential, prohibits waivers of survivors’ rights under the statute, and provides for civil enforcement through injunctive relief and civil penalties.

Family Code section 6320 is amended to make clear that “disturbing the peace” and “coercive control” may be carried out through internet-connected devices, including connected devices as defined in Business and Professions Code section 22948.30.

AB 1297 – Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (ATROs)
Effective date: January 1, 2027
Amends, repeals, and adds Family Code section 2040.

Existing law authorizes the issuance of automatic temporary restraining orders (ATROs) in proceedings for dissolution, legal separation, nullity, and under the Uniform Parentage Act. Under prior law, the ATROs prohibited parties from cashing out, borrowing against, canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing beneficiaries of insurance or other coverage, including life, health, automobile, and disability policies, held for the benefit of the parties or their children.

Commencing January 1, 2027, AB 1297 further prohibits both parties from allowing a covered plan to lapse for nonpayment of premiums or from failing to renew insurance when renewal is required. A party who simply stops paying premiums such that coverage is lost will be in violation of the ATROs.

AB 561 – Restraining Orders: Electronic Filing and Remote Appearance
Effective date: January 1, 2027
Amends Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6; Family Code sections 6307 and 6308; Government Code section 6103.2; and Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03.

AB 561 harmonizes and expands electronic filing and remote-appearance rules across in civil harassment and domestic violence cases.

For civil harassment orders under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, commencing January 1, 2027, petitions and related filings may be submitted electronically. When a petitioner files electronically, the request, notice of hearing, copies for service, and any temporary order must be provided to the petitioner electronically unless the petitioner opts to pick up paper copies from the court. A party or witness may appear remotely at the hearing on the petition for a protective order, and the superior court may not charge a fee for the remote appearance.

For domestic violence restraining orders, beginning January 1, 2027, courts receiving domestic violence restraining order petitions must accept electronic filings at no charge to the petitioner. The court must provide the request, notice of hearing, copies for service, and any temporary orders electronically to petitioners who file electronically unless they elect to pick them up. The superior court may not charge a fee for a party, support person, or witness to appear remotely at a domestic violence restraining order hearing.

AB 515 – Trial: Statement of Decision
Effective date: January 1, 2027
Amends, repeals, and adds Code of Civil Procedure sections 632 and 664.
Section 632 (Statement of Decision)

Under current law, the timing for requesting a statement of decision depends on the length of trial. For trials lasting more than one calendar day (or eight-plus hours over multiple days), the request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision. For shorter trials, the request must be made before submission. The new law eliminates that bifurcated timing structure entirely. Regardless of trial length, the request must now be made before the matter is submitted for decision. The request must also be in writing, or made orally on the record if the proceeding is being transcribed — the old law had no such formality requirement for the request itself.

The new law also adds a service requirement: the written statement of decision must be served on all parties who appeared at trial. Current law is silent on service. And the new statute expressly states that the statement of decision need not summarize all evidence admitted at trial — a codification that addresses a recurring point of confusion in practice.

The court has express authority to issue a statement of decision on its own initiative, even if no party requests one. It can also order a party to prepare a draft statement of decision. The objection process is as follows: parties have 10 days after service of the statement to file objections. If no objections are filed, the statement becomes final when the objection period expires. If objections are filed, the court may (but need not) hold a hearing, and the statement becomes final when the court rules on the objections — or, if the court never rules, 30 days after the objection deadline (or 30 days after a hearing, if one was held). Notably, the prior version of the statute did not place any deadline on the final statement of decision. The court can also order preparation and service of a proposed judgment, with its own 10-day objection window.

The court to extend any time period by written order, and to excuse noncompliance for good cause before entry of judgment. Notably, in Family Code proceedings specifically, the court can also shorten these time periods for good cause — a recognition that family law matters often operate under time pressure.

Finally, the Judicial Council is directed to adopt implementing rules of court and prepare a form for requesting a statement of decision.

Section 664 (Entry of Judgment)

Under current law, after a court trial, the clerk must enter judgment “immediately” upon filing of the court’s decision. The new law replaces that with a 30-day window. If no statement of decision was requested, judgment must be entered within 30 days of filing the court’s decision. If a statement of decision was requested, the 30-day clock doesn’t start until the statement becomes final under the new § 632 process.