AB 1050 - An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.

Child custody: preferences of child. 2009-2010 Legislature. View bill details
Author(s):
Summary:
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child… More
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012, promulgate a rule of court establishing procedures for the examination of a child witness, as specified. Hide
 
Status:
The bill has become law (chaptered). 
Assembly Vote: On Passage

PASSED on May 11, 2009.

voted YES: 78 voted NO: 0
2 voted present/not voting

An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.

AB 1050 — 2009-2010 Legislature

Summary
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012,… More
Existing law requires the family court, if a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody, to consider and give due weight to the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody.

This bill would, on and after January 1, 2012, require the family court to consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation. The bill would require the court to permit a child who is 14 years of age or older to address the court regarding custody or visitation, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child’s best interests, and, in that case, the bill would require the court to state its reasons for that finding on the record. The bill would require the court to provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child’s preferences if the court precludes the calling of any child as a witness. The bill would require the Judicial Council to, no later than January 1, 2012, promulgate a rule of court establishing procedures for the examination of a child witness, as specified. Hide
Learn More
At LegInfo.ca.gov
Title
An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.
Author(s)
Fiona Ma
Co-Authors
    Subjects
    • Child custody: preferences of child
    Major Actions
    Introduced2/27/2009
    Referred to Committee
    Passed Assembly Committee on Judiciary5/05/2009
    Passed Assembly5/11/2009
    Passed Senate Committee on Judiciary6/29/2010
    Passed Senate8/05/2010
    Passed Assembly8/09/2010
    Presented to the governor (enrolled)8/16/2010
    Became law (chaptered).8/27/2010
    Bill History
    Chamber/CommitteeMotionDateResult
    select this voteAssembly Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, to Consent Calendar.5/05/2009This motion PASSED the Assembly Committee on Judiciary
    10 voted YES 0 voted NO 0 voted present/not voting
    currently selectedAssemblyAB 1050 MA Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session5/11/2009This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 2 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenate Committee on JudiciaryDo pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations Recommend Consent.6/29/2010This motion PASSED the Senate Committee on Judiciary
    4 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    select this voteSenateConsent Calendar 2nd AB1050 Ma8/05/2010This bill PASSED the Senate
    33 voted YES 0 voted NO 5 voted present/not voting
    select this voteAssemblyAB 1050 MA Concurrence in Senate Amendments8/09/2010This bill PASSED the Assembly
    78 voted YES 0 voted NO 1 voted present/not voting
    ActionDateDescription
    Introduced2/27/2009
    2/27/2009Introduced. To print.
    3/01/2009From printer. May be heard in committee March 30.
    3/02/2009Read first time.
    3/26/2009Referred to Com. on JUD. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    3/27/2009Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    4/16/2009From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.
    4/20/2009Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote5/05/2009Do pass, to Consent Calendar.
    5/05/2009From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (May 5).
    5/06/2009Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    5/11/2009Read third time, passed, and to Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1369.)
    5/11/2009In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
    currently selectedAssembly Vote on Passage5/11/2009AB 1050 MA Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session
    5/21/2009Referred to Com. on JUD.
    6/21/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
    select this voteVote6/29/2010Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations Recommend Consent.
    6/30/2010From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. Re-referred. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 29).
    8/02/2010From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and to Consent Calendar.
    8/03/2010Read second time. To Consent Calendar.
    8/05/2010Read third time, passed, and to Assembly. (Ayes 33. Noes 0. Page 4373.)
    8/05/2010In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 7 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
    select this voteSenate Vote on Passage8/05/2010Consent Calendar 2nd AB1050 Ma
    8/09/2010Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 6098.)
    select this voteAssembly Vote on Passage8/09/2010AB 1050 MA Concurrence in Senate Amendments
    8/16/2010Enrolled and to the Governor at 4:55 p.m.
    8/27/2010Approved by the Governor.
    8/27/2010Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 187, Statutes of 2010.

    MapLight did not identify any interest groups that took a position on this vote.
    You may be able to explore campaign contributions data if you add interest groups.
    Help your colleagues by suggesting an organization that took a position on this vote.

    0 Organizations Supported and 0 Opposed

    Organizations that took a position on
    An Act to Amend Section 3042 of the Family Code, Relating to Child Custody.: AB 1050 MA Consent Calendar Second Day Regular Session

    0 organizations supported this bill

    0 organizations opposed this bill

    Need proof?

    View citations of support and opposition

    Anything missing?

    Help your colleagues by suggesting an organization that took a position on this vote.
    How do you know they have this position? Please include a link to a newspaper article, organization's website, or other source.
    We will use it only to contact you about this form. Your address will never appear on this site.

    MapLight editors may add this organization after checking the sources you listed above. Thank you for helping to improve our site.

    Cancel
    Includes reported contributions to campaigns of Assemblymembers in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2010.
    Contributions data source: FollowTheMoney.org

    Add Data Filters:

    Legislator Filters
    Legislator Filters
    Show All
    NamePartyDistrict$ From Interest Groups
    That Supported
    $ From Interest Groups
    That Opposed
    Vote
    Anthony AdamsRCA-59$0$0Yes
    Tom AmmianoDCA-13$0$0Yes
    Joel AndersonRCA-77$0$0Yes
    Juan ArambulaICA-31$0$0Yes
    Karen BassDCA-47$0$0Yes
    Jim BeallDCA-24$0$0Yes
    Bill BerryhillRCA-26$0$0Yes
    Tom BerryhillRCA-25$0$0Yes
    Sam BlakesleeRCA-33$0$0Yes
    Marty BlockDCA-78$0$0Yes
    Bob BlumenfieldDCA-40$0$0Yes
    Julia BrownleyDCA-41$0$0Yes
    Joan BuchananDCA-15$0$0Yes
    Anna CaballeroDCA-28$0$0Yes
    Charles CalderonDCA-58$0$0Yes
    Wilmer Amina CarterDCA-62$0$0Yes
    Wesley ChesbroDCA-1$0$0Yes
    Connie ConwayRCA-34$0$0Yes
    Paul CookRCA-65$0$0Yes
    Joe CotoDCA-23$0$0Yes
    Mike DavisDCA-48$0$0Yes
    Hector De La TorreDCA-50$0$0Yes
    Kevin De LeonDCA-45$0$0Yes
    Chuck DeVoreRCA-70$0$0Yes
    Mike DuvallRCA-72$0$0Not Voting
    Bill EmmersonRCA-63$0$0Yes
    Mike EngDCA-49$0$0Yes
    Noreen EvansDCA-7$0$0Yes
    Mike FeuerDCA-42$0$0Yes
    Nathan FletcherRCA-75$0$0Yes
    Paul FongDCA-22$0$0Yes
    Felipe FuentesDCA-39$0$0Yes
    Jean FullerRCA-32$0$0Yes
    Warren FurutaniDCA-55$0$0Yes
    Ted GainesRCA-4$0$0Yes
    Cathleen GalgianiDCA-17$0$0Yes
    Martin GarrickRCA-74$0$0Yes
    Danny GilmoreRCA-30$0$0Yes
    Curt HagmanRCA-60$0$0Yes
    Isadore HallDCA-52$0$0Yes
    Diane HarkeyRCA-73$0$0Yes
    Mary HayashiDCA-18$0$0Yes
    Ed HernandezDCA-57$0$0Yes
    Jerry HillDCA-19$0$0Yes
    Alyson HuberDCA-10$0$0Yes
    Jared HuffmanDCA-6$0$0Yes
    Kevin JeffriesRCA-66$0$0Yes
    Dave JonesDCA-9$0$0Yes
    Steve KnightRCA-36$0$0Yes
    Paul KrekorianDCA-43$0$0Yes
    Ted LieuDCA-53$0$0Yes
    Dan LogueRCA-3$0$0Yes
    Bonnie LowenthalDCA-54$0$0Yes
    Fiona MaDCA-12$0$0Yes
    Tony MendozaDCA-56$0$0Yes
    Jeff MillerRCA-71$0$0Yes
    Bill MonningDCA-27$0$0Yes
    Pedro NavaDCA-35$0$0Yes
    Brian NestandeRCA-64$0$0Yes
    Roger NielloRCA-5$0$0Yes
    Jim NielsenRCA-2$0$0Yes
    John PerezDCA-46$0$0Yes
    Manuel PerezDCA-80$0$0Yes
    Anthony PortantinoDCA-44$0$0Yes
    Curren PriceDCA-51$0$0Yes
    Ira RuskinDCA-21$0$0Yes
    Mary SalasDCA-79$0$0Yes
    Lori SaldanaDCA-76$0$0Yes
    Jim SilvaRCA-67$0$0Yes
    Nancy SkinnerDCA-14$0$0Yes
    Cameron SmythRCA-38$0$0Yes
    Jose SolorioDCA-69$0$0Yes
    Audra StricklandRCA-37$0$0Yes
    Sandre SwansonDCA-16$0$0Yes
    Tom TorlaksonDCA-11$0$0Yes
    Norma TorresDCA-61$0$0Yes
    Alberto TorricoDCA-20$0$0Yes
    Van TranRCA-68$0$0Yes
    Mike VillinesRCA-29$0$0Yes
    Mariko YamadaDCA-8$0$0Not Voting

    Interest Groups that supported this bill

    $ Donated

    Interest Groups that opposed this bill

    $ Donated
    Loading…
    Date Range of Contributions
    Enter a custom date range