Family law: child custody.
Summary
Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. In making that determination, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether either of the child's parents habitually or continually uses alcohol or illegal drugs. The court may require independent corroboration of an allegation that a parent is habitually or continually using controlled substances or illegal drugs. This bill would require a family court to consider, in determining the best interest of the child in custody proceedings, either parent's habitual or continual abuse of prescribed controlled substances. Existing law, until January 1, 2013, authorizes a court to require any person who is seeking custody of, or visitation with, a child who is the subject of a custody, visitation, or guardianship proceeding, to undergo testing for the illegal use of controlled substances and the use of alcohol under specified circumstances, as specified. This bill would delete the repeal clause for these provisions and thus extend the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2012
Committee Review
Aug 2012
Assembly Passage
Apr 2012
Senate Passage
Aug 2012
Signed into Law
Sep 2012
Introduced Feb 24, 2012
Signed Sep 7, 2012
Floor votes · Senate Aug 9, 2012 · Assembly Apr 12, 2012
How they voted
30–0
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 31
Aug 9, 2012
D
Democratic20
95% Yea
R
Republican11
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
24
Key actions
8
Committee
8
Amendments
1
Sep 7, 2012
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 13, 2012
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 71. Noes 1. Page 5893.).
lower
Aug 9, 2012
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (30-0-1)
senate
Aug 9, 2012
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 11 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jun 20, 2012
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 19).
upper
Jun 7, 2012
Upper · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
upper
Apr 19, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 12, 2012
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (59-0-11)
assembly
Apr 10, 2012
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 10).
lower
Apr 9, 2012
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 15, 2012
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 26, 2012
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
lower
Feb 24, 2012
Introduced
Introduced. To print.
lower
1 primary · 3 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
BN
Brian Nestande
RRepublican
Co
JB
Joan Buchanan
DDemocratic
Co
KD
Kevin D Jeffries
RRepublican
Co
KO
Kristin Olsen
RRepublican
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 2365
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 2365. 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