©2025 by Glen L. Rabenn
In its 2023 – 2024 session, the California State Legislature enacted the following statutes, which are relevant to family law actions in California. Please note that the following are very brief summaries of selected legislation. This summary is not intended to be a complete summary of all family law legislation. In addition, it is not intended as legal advice. You should consult with your own attorney to find out if a particular statute is relevant to your situation. Please further note that this post does not discuss statutes governing juvenile law or paternity cases under the Uniform Parentage Act.
Child Custody
Parent’s Illegal Access to Firearms
Added and Amended: Family Code §§3064 (b) (2) (A) and (B), and 3100(c)(1)(A)
Existing Law:
The court must refrain from making an order granting or modifying a child custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child, as defined, or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California. There is no specific reference to the presence of firearms as a factor to consider in determining the potential of immediate harm to the child.
New Law:
The court is required to consider a parent’s illegal access to firearms and ammunition when assessing immediate harm to a child. “Illegal access” is defined as possession, purchase, or receipt of firearms or ammunition in violation of state or federal law, restraining orders, protective orders, injunctions, or probation or parole conditions.
In addition, courts will be required to evaluate whether visitation should be supervised, suspended, limited, or denied if there is evidence of immediate harm to the child or a risk of the child being removed from California, sufficient to make an ex parte order
Child Support
Special Needs Trusts for Children with Disabilities
Amended: Family Code §3910
Existing Law:
Family Code §3910 currently provides that parents can be ordered to support their adult disabled children.
New Law:
Courts have now been empowered to direct child support payments into special needs trusts for children with disabilities. This ensures that financial support does not jeopardize the child’s eligibility for public assistance programs like Medi-Cal or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
By facilitating the allocation of child support payments into special needs trusts, this amendment helps maintain essential government benefits for children with disabilities, while providing them with necessary financial support.
Domestic Violence
Rejection of Application for Ex Parte Orders by the Court Clerk
Added: Family Code §6300(c)
Existing Law:
The clerk of the court can reject an application for an ex parte protective order if
the requesting party has not properly and completely filled out the applicable court forms.
New Law:
The court clerk cannot reject an ex parte application if it:
- Is submitted on mandatory Judicial Council forms
- Includes all of the forms required to issue an order
- Identifies the party submitting the request, and
- Identifies the party who is the subject of the requested order.
This legislation was enacted to streamline the process for obtaining protection orders.
Note: Many practitioners are not aware of Family Code §3600(b). That section provides that a domestic violence ex parte application cannot be denied solely because the other party was not provided with notice. In other words, as long as the filing party complies with all applicable codes and rules, the court is prohibited from denying the application solely because the responding party was not notified.
Domestic Violence Protective Orders and Background Checks
Amended: Family Code §6306
Existing Law:
Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a protective order, the court must ensure that a search of specified records and databases is or has been made to determine if the proposed subject of the order has a registered firearm.
New Law:
This legislation mandates comprehensive background checks on individuals subject to proposed restraining orders. Before a hearing on the issuance or denial of a protective order, courts are required to conduct searches to determine if the subject has:
- Prior criminal convictions for violent or serious felonies.
- Misdemeanor convictions involving domestic violence, weapons, or other violence.
- Outstanding warrants.
- Parole or probation status.
- Ownership or possession of firearms, as indicated in the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System.
- Prior restraining orders or violations thereof.
Courts are required to consider the information obtained from these searches when deciding whether to issue a protective order or determining appropriate temporary custody and visitation orders.
Any Information obtained that does not involve a conviction must not be considered by the court and should be destroyed, ensuring it does not become part of the public record in any civil proceeding.
Civil Procedure
Serving Legal Process on Financial Institutions
Amended: Code of Civil Procedure §§ 488.610; 684.115; 701.030
Existing Law:
A financial institution is permitted, and if it has more than nine branches or offices within the state is required, to designate one or more central locations for service of legal process within the state. Except as specified, service of legal process at a central location of a financial institution is effective against all deposit accounts, all property held as loan collateral, or in a safe-deposit box, if the deposit accounts or properties are held by the financial institution at any branch or office covered by central process and located within the state.
New Law:
Financial Institutions can designate third-party agents as central locations for accepting service of process. If they do so, they must also designate at least one additional central location in a different county. Service designations must be filed with the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, including details such as physical addresses, service hours, and any limitations on the types of process accepted.
Transfer of Family Law Proceedings
Amended: Code of Civil Procedure §§397.5, 399, 659]
Existing Law:
Courts could transfer cases to another county if both parties had moved out of the original county.
New Law:
This legislation broadens this authority, allowing courts to transfer any proceeding under the Family Code—excluding those involving the local child support agency—when both the petitioner and respondent have relocated from the county that issued the original order. However, proceedings involving the local child support agency are subject to specific venue requirements and are not included in this expanded transfer authority.
This legislation further mandates that when a family law case is transferred to a new county, the original court must retain jurisdiction to issue orders necessary to prevent immediate danger or irreparable harm to a party or child involved, or to prevent the immediate loss or damage to property subject to disposition in the matter, until the receiving court assumes jurisdiction.
Enforcement Of Judgments
Enforcement of Money Judgments in Civil Actions
Amended: Code of Civil Procedure §§ 684.130, 685.070, 703.510, 703.570, 703.580, 703.610, 704.115, 704.220, 706.021, 706.022, 706.103, and 706.105.
Existing Law:
Various sections of the Code of Civil Procedure define what types of property are subject to and exempt from the enforcement of money judgments, including certain retirement plans. In addition, judgment creditors seeking to enforce money judgments are required to provide specified notice to judgment debtors . Existing law provides rules for claiming exemptions from the enforcement of money judgments and provides requirements for the adjudication of such exemptions.
New Law:
This legislation introduces safeguards and time lines related to bank levies, wage garnishment, and claims of exemption to protect judgment debtors, particularly low-income individuals, during the enforcement of money judgments. Key provisions are the following:
- Exemptions for Retirement Plans: Expands the types of retirement plans exempt from money judgments and specifies the extent of these exemptions.
- Notice Requirements: Judgment creditors have to take additional steps to verify a judgment debtor’s address and provide notice of enforcement actions.
- Return of Exempt Property: Courrts are required to order the return of exempt property that has been levied upon.
- Limitations on Earnings Withholding Orders: Sets time limits on the enforcement of earnings withholding orders and restricts the frequency with which such orders can be sought.
- Protection of Exempt Funds: Financial institutions are required to protect cumulatively exempt funds belonging to the debtor, even when held in multiple accounts.
Miscellaneous Statutory Changes
Remote Court Reporting
Added: Government Code §69959.5
Existing Law:
A superior court can appoint official court reporters and specifies the fees for court reporting services. Existing law prohibits courts from using remote court reporting, as defined, to produce the record of any court proceedings and from expending any funds to purchase equipment or software to facilitate the use of remote court reporting.
New Law
Specified California superior courts are permitted to conduct pilot projects exploring the use of remote court reporting, where certified court reporters capture verbatim records of proceedings from locations outside the courtroom. Key provisions are the following:
- Pilot Projects: Beginning July 1, 2025, superior courts in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tulare, and Ventura may initiate pilot projects to assess remote court reporting’s effectiveness.
- Eligible Proceedings: Remote reporting is permitted for various case types, including limited civil, family law, child support, probate, juvenile dependency, juvenile delinquency, and certain criminal proceedings, excluding preliminary hearings, trials, and death penalty cases.
- Reporter Qualifications: Only full-time official court reporters licensed in California, with at least two years of courtroom experience, are eligible to participate.
- Technology Requirements: Participating courts must ensure appropriate audiovisual equipment is in place by June 30, 2025, to facilitate remote reporting.
- Limitations: No more than 20% of full-time official court reporters in a participating county, or two reporters in counties with fewer than ten, may engage in the pilot project.
- Liability Protection: Court reporters are not held responsible for technological failures. If issues arise that impede accurate transcription, proceedings must be temporarily suspended until resolved.
- Reporting and Evaluation: The Judicial Council is tasked with compiling results from each participating court and submitting a comprehensive report to the Legislature within six months after the pilot project’s conclusion.
Restoration of Former Name in Marital Dissolutions
Amended: Family Code §§ 2080 – 2802
Existing Law:
In, a proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for nullity of marriage, the court must, upon the request of a party, restore the birth name or former name of that party, regardless of whether a request for restoration of the name was included in the petition. The request cannot be denied because a child in the party has a different surname, or for any other reason, except fraud.
New Law
This legislation made a few minor language changes that did not affect the substance of the referenced Family Code sections.
Joint Petition for Dissolution of Marriage
Affected Family Code Sections:
Amended: 2330, 2331, 2342, 2401, and 2402.
Added: 2342.5 and 2342.51.
Existing Law:
A proceeding for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation is to be commenced by filing a petition containing specific information, including the date of marriage and the date of separation. The petitioner must serve a copy of the petition with a copy of a summons upon the respondent, who must respond in a specified time and manner.
Family Code §2400 provides that, under specified circumstances, a couple can jointly file a proceeding for summary dissolution of marriage by filing a joint petition. Such a petition can be filed only if there are no minor children, the marriage did not last more than five years, neither party owns any real property, the marital debts do not exceed $4,000 and the community estate does not exceed a value of $25,000. A joint petition does not require service or response. Under certain circumstances, either party can revoke a joint petition for summary dissolution and terminate the proceeding.
New Law
This legislation introduces a streamlined process under which spouses can jointly file for the dissolution of marriage or legal separation. . Key provisions are the following:
- Joint Petition and Summons: Spouses can file a joint petition and joint summons for dissolution or legal separation. Upon filing, both parties are considered served and have appeared in the matter, eliminating the need for separate service procedures.
- Designation of Parties: For identification, the first joint petitioner is deemed the petitioner, and the other is deemed the respondent.
- Amended Petition or Response: Either party may file an amended petition or response before the judgment is entered. Filing an amended petition or response revokes the joint petition, transitioning the proceeding to a standard dissolution or legal separation process.
- Discovery and Motions: Parties may engage in discovery. Filing a request for orders or trial setting requires submitting an amended petition or response, converting the joint petition into a standard proceeding.
- Judgment Based on Agreement: Judgments based on mutual agreement follow the same form as if initiated by a single petition and response, acknowledging both parties’ appearance due to the joint filing.
- Operative Date: These provisions become operative on January 1, 2026.
Assumption of Home Mortgage Loans in Family Law Proceedings
Added: Civil Code §2951
Existing Law:
Even if the parties agree, or the Court orders, that one of the spouses will keep the family residence, a home loan lender is not required to remove the name of the other spouse from the loan.
New Law:
Conventional home mortgage loans secured by owner-occupied residential properties with up to four dwelling units and multiple borrowers must include provisions allowing an existing borrower to assume another borrower’s portion of the mortgage. This provision applies in cases of divorce, legal separation, or related property settlements, provided the assuming borrower meets the lender’s qualification criteria. The term “conventional home mortgage loan” refers to loans not insured or guaranteed by the federal government. “Owner-occupied” indicates that the property serves as the principal residence of the borrowers and secures a loan made for personal, family, or household purposes. This statute applies to loans originated on or after January 1, 2027.
This statue addresses a problem which often arises in dissolution cases, where one spouse is buying out the other spouse’s interest in the family residence. Historically, some lenders have not permitted the spouse who is leaving the home to have his/her name removed from the existing home loan. This will alleviate this issue, but only as to new loans. Loans originated before January 1, 2027, will not be affected.
