AB 2044 California Assembly · 2017-2018 Regular Session

Domestic violence: family court.

Summary
Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interests 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. This bill would require the court to make the determination consistent with specified findings. The bill would include in those findings that children have the right to be safe and free from abuse and that domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the child. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other party seeking custody of the child or against the child or the child's siblings within the previous five years is detrimental to the best interests of the child. In overcoming that presumption, existing law requires the court to consider specified factors, including whether the perpetrator of domestic violence has committed any further acts of domestic violence. This bill would extend this presumption to a person who has committed domestic violence against another person with whom that party has a specified relationship. The bill would require the court, in determining whether the presumption is overcome, to find that the perpetrator of domestic violence has demonstrated that giving sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to the perpetrator is in the best interests of the child and would specify additional factors that, on balance, are required to support the grant of custody. The bill would require the court to state its reasons for finding that the presumption has been overcome in writing or on the record. Existing law requires a court to grant reasonable visitation rights to a parent unless it is shown that the visitation would be detrimental to the best interest of the child. This bill, instead, would require the court to grant reasonable visitation rights when it is shown that the visitation would be in the best interest of the child, as defined, and consistent with the above provisions for ordering custody. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to establish judicial training programs for individuals who perform duties in domestic violence matters, including judges, referees, and mediators, among others, and requires that the training programs include instruction in all aspects of domestic violence. This bill would require the training to include the detriment to children of residing in a home with a person who perpetrates domestic violence and that domestic violence can occur without a party seeking or obtaining a restraining order, without a substantiated child protective services finding, and without other documented evidence of abuse.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2018
Committee Review
Aug 2018
Assembly Passage
Apr 2018
Senate Passage
Aug 2018
Signed into Law
Sep 2018
Introduced Feb 6, 2018 Signed Sep 30, 2018
Floor votes · Senate Aug 21, 2018 · Assembly Apr 5, 2018

How they voted

35–0
Passed
Total votes 35
Aug 21, 2018
D Democratic24
24 Yea
100% Yea
R Republican11
11 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
30
Key actions
10
Committee
8
Amendments
5
Sep 30, 2018
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 27, 2018
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6608.).
lower
Aug 22, 2018
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 24 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Aug 21, 2018
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (35-0)
senate
Aug 16, 2018
Upper · Passed
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
upper
Jul 3, 2018
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after July 5 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jun 25, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jun 13, 2018
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
May 31, 2018
Upper · Passed
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
Apr 19, 2018
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 5, 2018
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (48-0-23)
assembly
Apr 3, 2018
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (April 3).
lower
Apr 2, 2018
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Mar 22, 2018
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
lower
Feb 16, 2018
Committee
Referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Feb 7, 2018
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 9.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors

Sponsors

Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Photo of Mark Stone
Mark Stone
DDemocratic
CA
29