Custody and visitation: nonscientific theories.
Summary
Existing law governs the determination of child custody and visitation with a child in contested proceedings. Existing law provides for the use of court-appointed investigators, as defined, including court-appointed evaluators directed by the court to conduct a child custody investigation in those proceedings. Existing law authorizes the court to appoint a child custody evaluator if the court determines it is in the best interest of the child. If directed by the court, the evaluator is required to file a written confidential report on his or her evaluation. The report may be received in evidence on stipulation of all interested parties and is competent evidence as to all matters contained in the report. Existing law requires all child custody evaluators to have completed specified training relating to domestic violence and child abuse. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to adopt standards for court-connected evaluations, investigations, and assessments related to child custody. Existing law also requires the Judicial Council to formulate rules of court that establish education, experience, and training requirements for child custody evaluators and to establish related forms, as specified. This bill would provide that allegations of physical or sexual abuse against a child are to be investigated using specified methods of data collection and analysis. The bill would provide that the rules of evidence applicable in criminal proceedings shall apply whenever the court considers an allegation of physical or sexual abuse against a child in a custody proceeding. The bill would also provide that unproven, nonscientific theories, including, but not limited to, alienation theories, as specified, are not consistent with generally accepted clinical, forensic, scientific, diagnostic, or medical standards. The bill would prohibit a court from relying upon an unproven, unscientific theory and from accepting into evidence any finding provided by an expert witness or court appointed professional who has relied on an unproven, nonscientific theory that is a basis for that finding. The bill would require the Judicial Council to provide training consistent with these provisions. The bill would include a statement of legislative intent.
Bill status
failed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jul 2009
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 25, 2009
Last action Nov 30, 2010
Floor votes · Assembly May 28, 2009
How they voted
70–0
Passed
Total votes 70
May 28, 2009
D
Democratic43
100% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican26
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
19
Key actions
7
Committee
9
Amendments
4
Jul 14, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Jul 6, 2009
Upper · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
upper
Jun 28, 2009
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
Jun 11, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
May 28, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (70-0)
assembly
May 21, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 20).
lower
May 6, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
May 5, 2009
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended.
lower
May 4, 2009
Introduced
From committee: Amend, do pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (April 28).
lower
Apr 23, 2009
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Apr 22, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Mar 31, 2009
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 16, 2009
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 26, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 28.
lower
1 primary · 4 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jim Beall
DDemocratic
Co
AT
Alberto Torrico
DDemocratic
Co
CS
Cameron Smyth
RRepublican
Co
FM
Fiona Ma
DDemocratic
Co
Leland Yee
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 612
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 612. 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