Family law: complaints.
Summary
Existing law governs family law proceedings. Existing law authorizes or requires, as specified, the court to appoint various professionals to assist in these proceedings, including counsel for the minor, mediators, and child custody evaluators, among others. This bill would direct the Judicial Council, in consultation with judicial personnel, family law experts, and advocates to, on or before January 1, 2012, adopt a rule of court to establish a uniform, statewide procedure for handling and responding to complaints regarding family law experts employed or appointed by the court, including mediators, evaluators, investigators, special masters, and minor's counsel, as specified. The bill would require the Judicial Council to develop a timetable for completion of the complaint process to ensure that all complaints are resolved as expeditiously as possible, and to develop a list of appropriate responses to substantiated complaints. The bill would provide that a complainant shall not be retaliated against for having made a complaint. The bill would require the local complaint coordinator to maintain sufficient information about each complaint and its disposition to identify any history or patterns of complaints submitted and shall report annually on complaints received and their disposition to the Judicial Council. The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature, on or before February 1, 2013, until January 1, 2017, and then annually thereafter, on the complaint procedure, including whether it is being fully implemented locally, data on the number of complaints and their disposition, information on patterns of complaints, and any modifications made to the rule of court. The bill would also require the Judicial Council, on or before January 1, 2012, to develop forms, information sheets, and other resources necessary to ensure the complaints process is easily accessible to the parties. The bill would require information on the complaint process to be provided to parties and their attorneys, and to be made available at the court self-help centers.
Bill status
failed
1 of 4 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2010
Committee Review
Floor Vote
Governor
Introduced Feb 19, 2010
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes
How they voted
No floor votes recorded yet.
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
16
Key actions
3
Committee
8
Amendments
5
May 28, 2010
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.
lower
May 19, 2010
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
May 12, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 11, 2010
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
May 10, 2010
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (May 4).
lower
Apr 29, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 28, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 26, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 22, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 12, 2010
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 8, 2010
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Apr 8, 2010
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 21, 2010
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
lower
Feb 19, 2010
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jim Beall
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2475
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2475. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline