Military protective orders.

Three new alternative sections (SEC. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3) were added, each providing a different version of Family Code Section 6383 that applies depending on whether AB 1753 and/or SB 1395 are also enacted. The original SEC. 2 remains as the default if neither companion bill passes.

New SEC. 3 establishes conditional operative provisions: SEC. 2.1 applies if SB 99 and AB 1753 both pass but SB 1395 does not; SEC. 2.2 applies if SB 99 and SB 1395 both pass but AB 1753 does not; SEC. 2.3 applies if all three bills pass. In each case, SB 99 must be enacted last for the combined version to take effect.

In the versions incorporating AB 1753 changes (SEC. 2.1 and 2.3), new subdivisions require peace officers serving restraining or protective orders to comply with Government Code Article 3 (commencing with Section 26660) regarding service procedures, extending those rules beyond marshals and sheriffs to all peace officers.

In versions incorporating SB 1395 changes (SEC. 2.2 and 2.3), the weapon seizure provision (subdivision (i)) was expanded to include 'or ammunition' in addition to firearms and other deadly weapons that peace officers must take temporary custody of.

In the versions incorporating AB 1753 changes (SEC. 2.1 and 2.3), new subdivisions authorize peace officers serving restraining or protective orders to bill the superior court for fees for service of the order, under Government Code Section 6103.2.

In versions incorporating SB 1395 changes (SEC. 2.2 and 2.3), the cross-reference to Penal Code Section 136.2 was expanded from 'subdivisions (h) and (i)' to 'subdivisions (h), (i), and (j),' reflecting an additional subdivision in that section.

The state mandates reimbursement provision was renumbered from SEC. 3 to SEC. 4 to accommodate the new conditional operative provisions inserted as SEC. 3.

Section 6306(a)(1) now requires courts to search only for a 'current military protective order' rather than a 'current or prior military protective order or prior violation of a military protective order.' This narrows what information courts must consider before issuing protective orders.

Section 6383(k) changes 'Each county law enforcement agency' to 'Each law enforcement agency,' broadening the authority to develop memoranda of understanding with military installations from only county agencies to all law enforcement agencies in the state.

Section 6326.5, which would have made military protective orders admissible evidence for an ex parte order and constitute a prima facie case for granting a temporary restraining order, is entirely removed from the bill.

Section 6383(j) removes the requirement that the person be 'a member of, or otherwise associated with, the Armed Forces of the United States' before triggering the notification duty, and lowers the standard from 'probable cause to believe the person has violated' to simply notifying that 'the restrained party may be in violation of a military protective order.'

The amendment to Family Code Section 6306 is entirely deleted. That section previously required courts to search NCIC and other databases for a current military protective order against the respondent before a hearing on a protective order. This mandatory pre-hearing search duty no longer exists.

Section 6310(a) is changed from allowing the court to consider whether 'a military protective order has been issued' to only allowing consideration of 'evidence submitted to it by either party that a military protective order has been issued.' This means courts are no longer expected to independently discover military protective orders; they can only act on information a party brings forward.

Assembly Members Dixon and Stefani are added as coauthors of the bill.

All provisions related to exempting military-run family childcare homes from state licensing under the Health and Safety Code were removed. This included requirements for annual filings, incident reporting, health and safety compliance, inspection policies, and prioritized inspections for facilities participating in DoD fee assistance programs.

The provision authorizing county law enforcement agencies to develop memoranda of understanding with military installations was narrowed to apply only to agencies 'in the state that petitions for or enforces protective orders issued pursuant to this division,' rather than all county law enforcement agencies broadly.

New Family Code Section 6310 was added, allowing a court to consider whether a military protective order has been issued against the respondent for the same or similar conduct against a person to be protected when determining whether to issue an order under Part 2 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

The standard for law enforcement notification about suspected military protective order violations was softened. Previously, an officer had to notify that they 'have probable cause to believe the person has violated the military protective order.' Now the officer notifies that 'the restrained party may be in violation of a military protective order,' lowering the threshold from probable cause to a mere possibility.

The fiscal note changed the state-mandated local program designation from 'no' to 'yes,' reflecting that the bill's law enforcement duties constitute a state mandate on local agencies.

Added new Family Code provisions (Sections 6306, 6326.5, and 6383 amendments) creating a framework for recognizing and enforcing military protective orders in California civil domestic violence proceedings. The bill now covers both childcare licensing and military protective order enforcement.

New Section 6326.5 defines 'military protective order' as a protective order issued by a commanding officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, California National Guard, or another state's national guard against a person under that officer's command.

Courts must now search for current or prior military protective orders and violations of such orders in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) systems as part of the pre-hearing search required before issuing domestic violence restraining orders under Section 6306.

Military protective orders are made admissible evidence for ex parte orders and constitute a prima facie case for granting a temporary restraining order under new Section 6326.5.

Law enforcement officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident who learn that a military protective order has been issued must verify its existence through NCIC. If an officer determines probable cause to believe a person violated a military protective order, they must notify the law enforcement agency that entered the order into NCIC.

County law enforcement agencies are authorized to develop memoranda of understanding with military law enforcement or designated representatives of military installations in their jurisdiction to coordinate investigation and response for domestic violence involving service members assigned to those installations.

The state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' meaning the bill now imposes costs on local agencies that may require state reimbursement. A new Section 4 provides that if the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill contains state-mandated costs, reimbursement shall be made under Government Code Part 7.

The July 1, 2026 policy requirement was expanded from a single sentence into five subparts. The policy must now specifically address health and safety requirements, provider criteria, and any enforcement, reporting, or corrective action procedures that apply to licensed or license-exempt family childcare homes as deemed appropriate by the department.

The department is now required to publish the policy on its internet website and to update it as necessary in consultation with the branches of the United States Armed Forces certifying family childcare homes operated outside federal property.

The license exemption language was changed from 'obtain and maintain a license' to 'obtain and or maintain a license' in two places, clarifying that the exemption covers both obtaining and maintaining a license independently rather than as a combined requirement.

The department's authority to inspect exempt family childcare homes was changed from 'shall may inspect' (a drafting artifact suggesting mandatory inspection) to 'may inspect,' making the inspection authority explicitly permissive rather than mandatory.

A new provider criterion (subparagraph vii) requires each exempt family childcare home provider to comply with all state antidiscrimination laws and regulations that apply to licensed family childcare providers. This closes a potential gap where exempt military homes might not have been subject to the same nondiscrimination obligations as licensed homes.

The department's inspection authority over exempt military family childcare homes was changed from mandatory ('shall inspect') to discretionary ('may inspect'), giving the department flexibility in deciding when to conduct compliance inspections. Note: the amended text contains a drafting error reading 'shall may inspect' instead of simply 'may inspect.'

The language governing military installation requirements was restructured from a general obligation ('Each military installation certifying exempt family childcare homes shall do all of the following') to a conditional qualification standard ('In order for a family childcare home to qualify for an exemption pursuant to paragraph (1), the military installation certifying the family childcare home shall do all of the following'), making clear these are prerequisites for the exemption rather than ongoing obligations.

Several cross-reference corrections were made: Section 1202 was corrected to Section 1200 for the clinic definition, and a reference to paragraph (9) of Section 46120 of the Education Code was updated to paragraph (10). The redundant phrase 'either any' in the public recreation program criteria was simplified to 'any.'