AB 1050 California Assembly · 2009-2010 Regular Session

Child custody: preferences of child.

Summary
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child's best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child's preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012, promulgate a rule of court establishing procedures for the examination of a child witness, as specified.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Aug 2010
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Signed into Law
Aug 2010
Introduced Feb 27, 2009 Signed Aug 27, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 5, 2010 · Assembly Aug 9, 2010

How they voted

33–0
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 38
Aug 5, 2010
D Democratic25
21 Yea 4
84% Yea
R Republican13
12 Yea 1
92% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
26
Key actions
8
Committee
8
Amendments
6
Aug 27, 2010
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 9, 2010
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (72-0-1)
assembly
Aug 9, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6098.)
lower
Aug 5, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (33-0-5)
senate
Aug 5, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 7 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 2, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and to Consent Calendar.
upper
Aug 2, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jun 30, 2010
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).
upper
Jun 21, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 21, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 5, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 5).
lower
Apr 20, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 16, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 27, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 26, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 26, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 1, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
lower
Feb 27, 2009
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
FM
Fiona Ma
DDemocratic
CA
12